Evidence of meeting #130 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 pfas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I'm sorry, Chair. Since there were so many cut-offs and since there's a lot of information, I'm just wondering if we could make sure that the witnesses know that if they want to submit anything at the end, it would be....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Before I was interrupted, I wanted to thank you, and now that I've been interrupted, I still want to thank you for your contribution to the study.
Along the lines that Ms. Mathyssen has alluded to, Canada is under enormous pressure from not only our allies, but also our adversaries to make minerals, in particular, available. The Chinese have just cut off certain critical minerals used in the creation of chips. We will be putting F-35s in Bagotville.
None of these problems are going to go away. The real question is about how to better deal with them. You folks, for better or for worse, have been “dabbling” on the edges, for want of a better term. I think the committee would benefit greatly from your thoughts on how Canada—DND, CAF—would better deal with our defence security pressures going forward. If we don't learn from the past, we're kind of hopeless. That would be a real contribution.
In the event that you just happen to be thinking about things like that, we would appreciate it. With that, we will suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're back.
Joining us in the second hour are Dave Hovington, chief fire inspector, and Shaunna Plourde, health services clerk. Appearing here personally is Erin Zimmerman.
I'll ask each of you for your opening five-minute statements.
I'll point out, colleagues, that we're almost 15 minutes behind the clock, and we have to yield the room to another committee. I may have to run the second round of questions a bit tightly.
With that, I'll call upon Mr. Hovington for his opening five minutes.
Dave Hovington Chief Fire Inspector, As an Individual
Thank you, sir and honourable committee.
I joined the forces in 1985 and dedicated my career to protecting lives and training others as a firefighter. After completing my basic firefighter training at Borden in 1986, I served in Moose Jaw, Borden and on the west coast, responding to emergencies and training on countless fires. Back then, we used what was available: thousands of gallons of flammable liquids and thick layers of foam to simulate real-life scenarios. Safety and readiness were our focus. We never imagined the long-term health risks these materials posed.
Decades later, I now face the personal cost of those practices. In the fall of 2022, I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and cardiac amyloidosis. These illnesses have drastically affected my strength and vitality, reducing me from someone who once ran daily and lifted weights to someone who struggles to walk 100 metres. The toll has been immense not just physically, but also emotionally. I'm grateful for the support I've received from the Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board for my present public service role, but I have yet to hear anything about my VAC compensation for military service.
My story raises serious questions. Why weren't the risks we faced as firefighters and military personnel more fully recognized? Why weren't steps taken to protect us even as we put ourselves on the line to protect others? This isn't about my personal journey. It's about a broader issue of accountability and transparency, especially regarding environmental safety.
Just a month and a half ago, an incident occurred that highlights these concerns. During a hydrant repair near hangar 6, workers unearthed soil with an extremely strong smell of fuel. The odour was so potent that it could be detected 20 metres away. Samples of water and soil were collected, but no one seems to know where these samples went and what the results are. Who is ensuring accountability for these testing processes? This was not an isolated case. At hangar 7, we had a pile of contaminated dirt that initially failed environmental tests. It was covered with plastic and tires to seal it, but this covering deteriorated, leaving the pile exposed to the elements for nearly a year. Workers expressed concerns about their health, and the pile was eventually moved behind the mess hall, out of sight. Following the relocation, a new test was conducted, and suddenly the contamination passed.
This raises troubling questions. How are these tests being conducted? Are the criteria being adjusted to meet convenience rather than fact? We have also noticed a pattern: Contaminated sites sometimes disappear from records after buildings are demolished or hazards are moved to less visible locations. Are these sites cleaned up properly, or are they simply being hidden from view? These are legitimate concerns that deserve clear and honest answers.
I have served this country proudly for decades. We trust that our institutions will protect not only us but also our families living on base. Canada is a democracy built on fairness, accountability and human rights. Yet, the lack of transparency in occupational health and safety meetings undermines these principles. How can we protect ourselves when we aren't even informed about the risks? How can we have meaningful safety discussions when critical environmental assessments are withheld? Our health, trust and well-being are at stake.
I ask all of you today to help ensure these issues are investigated thoroughly and transparently. Let us demand a system where contaminated sites are properly addressed, not just relocated. Let us push for environmental testing that is consistent, credible and reliable. Most importantly, let us make sure no one else has to face the challenges so many of us already are due to health effects from past practices, or from living and working in unsafe conditions today. I've given my life to serve Canada. All I ask in return is that we honour the commitment to protect those who serve and their families. It's not just about accountability. It's about trust, safety and doing what's right for us and future generations.
Thank you.
Shaunna Plourde Health Services Clerk, As an Individual
Thank you to the chair and honourable members of the committee for granting me the opportunity to speak to you today, and for your time and dedication to addressing this critical issue.
Thirty-one years ago, I was a young, married woman full of excitement and hope for my future. My husband was an aircraft engine technician for National Defence. We were expecting our first child. We had just moved into private married quarters on the base, and I had begun working as a clerk at the base convenience store, the Canex. I felt incredibly proud of the life we were building, one centred on service, community and the Canadian dream. I never imagined this dream would turn into a nightmare from which I cannot wake.
Nine months ago, a simple yet alarming question started being discussed in the building I work in: “Do you think our building is safe?” This question and the discussions that followed opened a door to truths that have been devastating to learn. I am proud to have served as a public service employee for over three decades, supporting members of the Department of National Defence. Yet, over the years, I have lived and worked in buildings, sent my children to day cares and schools, and used facilities that I now know are directly on contamination sites or within areas where contamination sites exist. Despite this, we were never told.
After moving onto the base in 1993, I began experiencing medical issues. At the time, I attributed them to the challenges of being a new mother and working hard. However, by 2001, after seven years on the base, I was diagnosed with a neurological disorder with significant neurobiological consequences. This has progressively worsened, requiring increasing medication that now affects my memory. Over the years, other warning signs emerged. In 2017, I had an emergency hysterectomy. Since this time, four other women I work with have all needed to have this procedure. Many of us were employed in the same building—building 143. Around the same time, we noticed that several colleagues, both military and civilian, were battling various cancers or autoimmune, thyroid and neurological issues.
This April, the pieces of the puzzle started coming together. After months of personal investigation, discussions and interviews, we discovered devastating patterns: over 50 deaths in a short time frame in seven buildings, and approximately 200 illnesses among those connected to our base, 15 Wing Moose Jaw. These include cancers, thyroid disorders, neurological conditions and other life-altering illnesses. These are not isolated cases. Our findings suggest a widespread issue of contamination affecting bases and military housing across Canada, impacting not only military members but also civilian employees, their families and even children.
I count myself lucky. My condition, though challenging, is somewhat manageable with medication. Many others are not as fortunate. My friend and colleague Erin Zimmerman, a 46-year-old mother of four, has been diagnosed with intracranial hypertension causing visual impairment and young-onset Parkinson's disease—a rare condition for her age that is linked to chemical exposure. Erin now works in building 143 and was previously with the Snowbirds in hangar 6. That is directly on top of an active contamination site in the federal contaminated sites inventory and where she spent one of her pregnancies. She was never informed of the risks. I think of my friend Dave Hovington, a fire inspector and devoted colleague who continues to work tirelessly despite battling cancer. I think of my own family. My pregnancies were complicated and my children were born with extremely low birth weights. My daughter now struggles with neurological and endocrine disorders, and my son faces chronic lung and gastrointestinal issues. I now wonder if these are the consequences of living and working in contaminated environments.
We have discovered that contamination exists all over our our small base where there are hangers, flight lines, fire halls, a previous school, day cares and homes. Yet, we were never informed. No one told us about the risks we were exposed to daily. My husband, who has served for over 35 years, has witnessed unsafe practices such as chemicals being disposed of improperly and without protective equipment. He now shows early signs of a neurological disorder. His colleagues, many of whom worked under similar conditions, have faced cancer, cardiac issues and other severe health problems. Some have passed away.
Through thousands of hours of research and data collection, we have uncovered a systematic failure to address these issues transparently and effectively. Those of us who have sought answers have faced skepticism, criticism and, now, retribution, but we persist, for those we have lost, for those who are suffering and for those who may yet be affected.
I ask you, why were we not given the right to know? Why are our children allowed to attend day cares in contaminated environments? Why is it acceptable to put lives at risk—military, civilian and our families'—and, most importantly, what is the cost of a human life?
We must act, not just to address the tragedies of the past, but to ensure a safer, healthier future for all Canadians.
Thank you.
Liberal
Erin Zimmerman As an Individual
Thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here and for dedicating your time to this discussion.
While today’s conversations centre around facts and policies, it is important to recognize that these are not just abstract issues. For many Canadians, these are personal.
People across the country are watching and seeking answers and oversight of safety in their communities. This conversation demands urgency and compassion. It is crucial to find a path forward that prioritizes transparency, accountability and the health and safety of all Canadians.
Unfortunately, systematic issues have created a system made impossible for DND to review through an internal process. I strongly encourage creating a dedicated budget line item in the next budget to fund an independent comprehensive review of DND contamination sites. This initiative should be directed by the president of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Anita Anand, with oversight and involvement from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and Health Canada to ensure impartiality and effectiveness in moving forward.
A question has come forward on how employees and surrounding communities were not advised about the federally managed contamination sites in the areas in which they worked and lived. Without disclosure, employees and members of the community were unable to ask questions or raise concerns regarding these properties. A lack of transparency and communication on these sites has left and will continue to leave irreversible impacts for these communities and within these areas.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the CCME, saw a need for implementing the requirements for a program to provide guidelines in identifying contaminated sites to ensure monitoring for the safety of the environment and for human health. In 2005, the federal contaminated sites action plan, FCSAP, began in response, to provide transparency to Canadians and federal departments by listing unprotected sites in the federal contamination sites inventory.
Under the Treasury Board's directive on management of real property, federal organizations are required to report, update and certify site data regularly. Under CCME guidelines, classified sites must be monitored for potential adverse health effects.
We must ask ourselves, if people on these sites were not informed or educated on the reporting process, how could they have known to report illnesses or deaths on or close to these properties, and where would they have reported? Given this gap, it is absolutely essential to determine how we can now align our actions with the program's established guidelines in order to move forward at this time.
Under CCME guidelines, how are health assessments on DND sites completed? DND is using “CAF medical”, which has its own internal medical system. Within this system fall DFHP and also PMed, which is preventative medicine. They operate under a strict mandate focused on military members and operations only.
This excludes civilian employees and surrounding communities, leaving significant gaps in medical oversight. CAF employees do not always fall under certain provisions of the Canada Labour Code in certain instances, so how can CAF medical health assessments mandated to members only ensure that health evaluations are done for individuals on those sites?
The lack of disclosure of contaminated sites prevents individuals from applying for WCB and VAC compensation claims. Claimants must provide key documentation, including area worked, work time, a list of contaminants and their supporting medical documentation for a subject matter expert to evaluate if their illness is considered occupational.
Occupational illnesses are assessed by the recommendations made by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. These situations are to be looked at by Health Canada with the occupational illness list that is created by the United Nations. It is called the “ILO”, the International Labour Organization. Looking through VAC public information and WCB policies shows that WCB follows this recommendation.
What standard is VAC following to assess occupational illnesses? If it is not using the recommendation, the question now is “Why?” Based on CAF policy, members sometimes fall outside of the Canada Labour Code standards while on domestic properties. These times occur during specialized operations and training only. This brings up an absolutely critical question. Should the ILO occupational illness list be applied when CAF members are exposed to contaminants at their home units as documented in federal inventory?
This raises absolutely significant questions about a potential conflict of interest for DND to evaluate the program and the management of these sites.
Thank you very much for your time.
Liberal
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
For those who have served, I do appreciate your service.
Obviously, with the testimonies that have been shared today, we have to recognize that it's not just military personnel who operate on a base, but also civilian employees and civilian contractors who help keep bases, wings and naval stations open. I begrudgingly say "naval stations", being an ex-Air Force guy. I have a close friend of mine who's in the navy, and he's pointed out that I've not said that, numerous times, so I'm throwing it in there for his benefit.
We heard a bit of Mr. Hovington's service history, and I believe it was 1986 when he joined.
Ms. Plourde, you mentioned that your husband served as an airframe technician. Could you give me the locations where he has served?
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Okay. Ms. Zimmerman, just for the record here, in what capacity have you served? In what roles have you served?
As an Individual
I was an RMS clerk with the Snowbirds for four to five years, but then—
Conservative
As an Individual
Yes, in the military. I am a veteran, but then I changed over to public service, so that means I can speak to you today.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Okay. I cut you off there. What roles were you in, as you said, as a clerk?
As an Individual
As a clerk, I was the claims clerk and HR clerk, so that was an RMS at that time for the Snowbirds squadron, which was very busy there. Also, I changed over to a public service role, and I've worked in procurement, contracting and finance.
Conservative
Conservative
As an Individual
No, I am actually from Moose Jaw. It was my first place to be, and I met an amazing person, so I transferred to public service so that I could stay. It's a great place.