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.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Just bringing it full circle here, where we have concerns is whether there are chemicals that the military uses that are not on your list. How do they disclose that to Environment Canada, the Treasury Board and to Health Canada? How do we know?
Is there a set standard that the federal government has put in place that all departments are required to answer or identify?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
I can say that, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there is a list of chemicals, an inventory of chemicals, that are permitted in Canada, whether they be private entities or federal jurisdictions that are allowed to be using those. Anything that's not on that list would have to be notified to both Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada before their market access.
There is a well-defined list of chemicals that are currently used in Canadian commerce, including at DND bases. Those are actively being assessed, both at Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, for the risks.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Okay.
I want to say for the record that I understand that you're trying to put in a standard. That's important. It's important for the safety of employees. It's important for the safety of the Department of National Defence. The concern I have is where the gaps are and how we can address them in this committee in order to prevent other people in the future from being exposed to chemicals that could be toxic.
Is there a plan that you have going forward to identify chemicals that are not on your list? Do you have a plan in place for that, which the military and the Department of National Defence is following?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
I think for the space that these questions are in now, it will be good to hear from DND about that. We're probably into some occupational health and safety as well as some types of issues that may be in more in a uniquely defence space, so I will suggest that.
In terms of the process for identifying chemicals of concern—and I may refer this question to Greg in a moment—there is the chemicals management plan that the federal government has. Health Canada and Environment Canada co-lead that. It is not my particular area of focus, but it is a long-standing program that's been working through the many industrial chemicals that have been developed over the last 100 years and identifying and learning about those so as to understand the risks to human health and the environment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Tolmie.
The defence department is coming next Tuesday. That's a question that probably should be directed to DND because it is quite a legitimate question of as to whether they have a list.
Ms. Lapointe, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have to say that I would be remiss, as the member of Parliament for Sudbury, not to take this opportunity to highlight one of the most remarkable remediation projects in the world, and that's the regreening of Sudbury.
My question is directed to you, Mr. Cain.
The initiative of the regreening of Sudbury has transformed a once heavily contaminated environment, which negatively impacted our air, our water, our soil and, consequently, the health of our residents, our wildlife and our natural ecosystems. Having witnessed what it takes to reverse such damage on such a large scale, I'm very keen to learn more about your processes.
Could you outline for the committee how Environment and Climate Change Canada approaches large-scale remediation projects and what the key steps involved are in tackling these types of challenges?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
There are multiple success stories coming from the federal contaminated sites action plan, and I think DND will be well placed to speak to some of the successes that it's had in some detail. These major types of situations like you're speaking about in Sudbury are complex and are often the result of decades-long efforts to assess, plan and clean up sites and then provide nature time to recuperate and fully restore.
I think I would invite DND, when they're here, to speak to their efforts in Esquimalt, in the harbour there, where 200 years' worth of industrial and various activities have created multiple hot spots and difficulties, both for the harbour and first nations. After extended efforts, there are signs of sea life returning to Esquimalt Harbour. There are those types of cases.
Hamilton Harbour is another place where, through work on the Great Lakes action plan, there's been significant work to contain and restore it. That's a site that has been worked on outside of FCSAP, but it is certainly a very long, collaborative effort with the city and the province, and there are certainly many more like that. There is a lot of good work being done, certainly, across DND and other partners.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Can you tell us how your department collaborates with other federal entities or stakeholders to address contamination challenges, and how you ensure the efficient use of resources?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
The FCSAP program, I think, is really the heart of how we work collaboratively. It is a horizontal initiative involving expert science departments providing the sort of guidance and expertise that can be the basis for custodians to know, to plan and to understand risks. We use a common set of nationally used classification approaches that were developed by the CCME. That set of tools allows the custodians to be able to identify the sites that pose the higher risk to human health and the environment.
Per Treasury Board policy, custodians must then focus on those sites first, as a general rule. It is that collaborative effort of basing the program on sound science, of assessing sites first to understand the sorts of contaminants that are there and of then relying on the expertise of custodians, the private sector and departments to develop the right types of remediation and risk management plans and to make sure they make sense. Poor decisions can cost a lot of money, and good decisions can save a lot of money. Working together, I think, is at the heart of it.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Ms. Evans, I have a similar question for you.
How does the Treasury Board Secretariat work with the many federal departments to establish priority projects and achieve measurable results?
Executive Director, Investment Management Directorate, Office of the Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat
As my colleague indicated, we have a common set of standards, which is something that we work together on, not just across federal departments but also with provinces and municipalities, in order to have that set standard, which is established, as my colleague indicated, by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Then we use the tools within the Treasury Board policy instruments to ensure that all of the custodians are working together.
The governance, which is led by my colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada, really makes sure that we're bringing people together, and that's supported by us within the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
No.
However, I heartily endorse Ms. Lapointe's view on Sudbury. It's quite a remarkable transformation. I would even say that it's miraculous, especially for those of us who were ensconced in the luxury of the Holiday Inn that time.
You have five minutes, Madame Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
I'm going to continue in the same vein with Ms. Mathyssen and discuss the recommendations that are made to site custodian organizations.
I understand that they aren't binding. The site custodian organizations are solely responsible for implementing those recommendations. Unless others can make binding decisions, ultimately, the site custodian organization is solely responsible for implementing recommendations. Is that right?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
You know, custodians are responsible for meeting applicable federal laws and regulations. If the contamination goes onto non-federal lands, provincial or territorial regulations may apply. It is working to meet those standards and guidelines. It's not always as simple as a black-or-white type of answer. However, that's ultimately what they are expected to meet.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Are the recommendations that you make public? Are they protected by professional privilege, as is the case with lawyers? Can anyone obtain them via information access requests? What's the status of your recommendations?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
If I've understood your question correctly, you're asking whether the information is available, whether it can be made available, through, say, an access to information request. I would say that, generally, yes. Unless there is a particular security element or something, information can be made available.
One of the roles that Health Canada has helped FCSAP with is to communicate risks. The risks associated with a particular contaminate or with groups of contaminates are not always obvious. They can vary greatly depending on the length of exposure or the particular demographic or person, so I think it's just important to keep in mind that communicating responsibly is part of the role of the program and of government. It's to, yes, share and be transparent, but it's also to provide context. Otherwise, things can be more frightening than they actually are, in fact, once there's the proper context.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Let's talk about cases where contaminants spread outside a federal site. We've heard that, in some instances, contamination may come from a source other than the federal site.
Are any of you responsible for assessing the contamination source in that instance? For example, you could determine that the Department of National Defence may not be responsible for the contamination and that a nearby private business is the source.
Who's responsible for conducting that kind of assessment?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thanks for the question.
There is very clear guidance on how to delineate contamination. There's a lot known about these chemicals—how they behave in the environment, how they behave in groundwater and soil, and how they move based on geology and other characteristics. The source of contamination is well understood at these sites based on a very science-rigorous process of identifying the concentrations and how they're moving across a property.
If they move from federal land to a provincial space, clearly the building landowner gets engaged. The province in question also gets engaged. It's a very collaborative process, from that perspective.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
My question was more specific. Let's consider a case involving information to the effect that another entity, a private business, for example, is responsible for the contamination, not the federal site. Theoretically, who conducts that assessment?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
Thank you for the question.
If we're speaking about non-federal land, the general answer is that the province or territory is the correct authority to refer a question to, as a landowner. You work with the relevant province and their authorities, be it their department of environment or whatever, in order to understand and investigate.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Once again, I don't think that answers my question.
Let's consider a case in which a federal site has contaminated a provincial site, but the federal entity asserts that another organization is the source of contamination, not the federal site. Who conducts the assessment in that instance?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
I may not be quite understanding the question. I'm going to listen again with the translation, in case I'm missing a nuance. I apologize.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Information may occasionally be received to the effect that a federal site is the source of contamination of another, non-federal site. Consider the example of the Bagotville military base and the Ville de Saguenay. Let's say the federal government informs us that there may be a source of contamination that isn't the federal site. It could be a private company, for example. In that case, who conducts the study to determine whether an entity other than the federal site is possibly the contamination source?
Director, Contaminated Sites Division, Department of the Environment
I'll build on part of the earlier responses from me and Mr. Carreau.
Hydrologic-type modelling can help us understand how contamination moves in the environment. Ultimately, in the case you're thinking of, that analysis would have been done by National Defence.
However, custodians work with local municipalities and provinces to identify other potential sources of contaminants, be they a garage, a repair shop or another group that uses chemicals of this nature. From there, you can start to identify those other sources and then how much they may have contributed to a given—