Evidence of meeting #131 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 gagetown.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it.
As you know, we have votes, and the votes take precedence over everything. Also, just take note, colleagues, that our former member, Madame Normandin, had her baby.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. His name's Léopold. That's right. It sounds like a Belgian prince.
Is that not a good idea? Is there not a good connection there? No?
It just does show you, though, that this is the most productive committee on the Hill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Oh, every once in a while it happens.
With that, we have three witnesses today: Eileen Beauchamp, Gary Goode and Colonel (Retired) David Salisbury.
I'm just going to call you in the order that I've mentioned you. You'll have five minutes each.
Ms. Beauchamp, you have five minutes, please.
You're on mute.
Eileen Beauchamp As an Individual
Good afternoon, members of the standing committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this critical issue regarding the National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces current and legacy contaminated sites.
My name is Eileen Beauchamp, and I appear today to share my personal connection to this issue. My father, a Korean War veteran, served in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1951 to 1975, including at CFB Gagetown during the 1960s. Our family lived in PMQs at CFB Gagetown from 1962 to 1969 and participated in recreational activities. Many of these activities occurred in areas later identified as spray zones for harmful chemicals, including Agent Orange.
Tragically, my family has endured severe health challenges over the years, including multiple cancers and other illnesses. Throughout my lifetime, I have been diagnosed with multiple illnesses related to the endocrine system, including autoimmune diseases. In October and November 2017, I was diagnosed with three individual cancers, melanoma, breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a recognized presumptive illness linked to chemical exposure.
This experience is not unique; countless other military personnel, veterans, families and civilians with ties to CFB Gagetown have faced similar struggles and illnesses.
CFB Gagetown's contamination history spans decades. From 1956 to 2004, extensive herbicide spraying had been conducted, involving chemicals like Agent Orange, numerous other dioxins, DDT and present-day use of glyphosates. Many of these harmful chemicals, especially dioxins, are known carcinogens.
While the 2005 fact-finding project investigated some of these exposures, significant gaps remain. The focus was predominantly on Agent Orange applications in 1966 and 1967, despite evidence of chemical spraying occurring before and after these years. Between 1956 and 1984, over 6,500 barrels of harmful chemicals were sprayed on approximately 181,000 acres, with minimal attention given to broader environmental and health impacts. Analytical methodologies omitted crucial factors such as measuring dioxins in the fatty tissue of consumed species where these toxins accumulate. The fact-finding project addressed some contamination concerns but left critical gaps. It largely overlooked the chronological and environmental scope of exposure, limiting its ability to identify all affected individuals and long-term impacts.
In 2007, a one-time ex gratia payment program was implemented; however, the sunset clause ended claims in December 2011, excluding individuals who developed illnesses later. Discrepancies between DND and Veterans Affairs in recognizing and compensating illnesses of exposure have added confusion and frustration for claimants.
The federal contaminated sites inventory does not fully capture the scope of legacy contamination at CFB Gagetown. This lack of integration prevents effective tracking of exposure-related health outcomes, undermining efforts to study long-term impacts and to offer support to affected military personnel, veterans, families and civilians.
Through advocacy efforts with groups like Brats in the Battlefield and learning from international practices, I have identified a potential solution, the U.S. PACT Act. This legislation provides expanded benefits to veterans exposed to toxic substances, streamlining health care and compensation. Canada could adopt a similar framework to improve support systems. Studies, like the one by New Zealand's Massey University, of Vietnam veterans reveal genetic and multi-generational effects of exposure, emphasizing the importance of sustained research and policy updates.
The legacy of contamination at CFB Gagetown has left a profound mark on military families, veterans and civilians. These individuals deserve recognition, accountability and justice. Addressing these challenges requires an integrated, compassionate and forward-thinking approach.
I urge the committee to prioritize this issue, fostering transparency, better support systems and legislative solutions to address contamination at CFB Gagetown and beyond.
Thank you for your attention.
I am pleased to answer your questions.
Liberal
Gary Goode Chairman, Brats In The Battlefield Association Inc.
Good day, Chair and committee members, and thank you for inviting me to testify before you here today in regard to the Department of National Defence's current and legacy contaminated sites.
I am proud to be testifying today on behalf of Brats In The Battlefield and all those who have been adversely affected by Gagetown's harmful chemical use.
I joined the Canadian Armed Forces less than three months before my 18th birthday. I served my country for just shy of three and a half years. I was stationed at CFB Gagetown. I served with the 2nd Battalion—the Black Watch—and was re-mustered to the Royal Canadian Regiment in the last year of my service.
As an infantry soldier, I spent weeks at a time in the training area and on all ranges. We dug and lived in trenches, sometimes for days, and we crawled on our bellies through the chemically-saturated training area. During the summer training, there was always dust that we would be inhaling. All of the training areas and ranges were repeatedly sprayed with 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, Tordon 101 and Tordon 10K. These chemical mixtures were better known as Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent White.
These highly toxic chemicals were vastly distributed over 181,038 acres at CFB Gagetown's training area.
Successive federal governments and DND would have you believe that the two and a half barrels of Tordon, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T herbicides that the Americans sprayed on Gagetown was the only time that highly toxic herbicides were ever sprayed on Gagetown.
DND's own document, A-2004-00207, which DND said had been lost through the passage of time, shows that between 1956 and 1984, DND sprayed 6,504 barrels of the exact same highly toxic chemicals that the Americans sprayed on Vietnam. The truth is that successive federal governments and DND sprayed more of these highly toxic chemicals per acre at CFB Gagetown than the American military sprayed per acre in Vietnam during that entire war.
On January 24, 1985, DND briefed the New Brunswick cabinet on the use of defoliants at CFB Gagetown, a transcript of which is found, again, on pages 75 to 90 of DND's document A-2004-00207, which was acquired through ATIP. This document contained 167 pages, but 85 pages were not released. We'd like to see those pages.
During the briefing, Major M. Rushton admitted that by 1964 the government and DND were concerned by the presence of dioxin in 2,4,5-T. He stated that at that time the government's knowledge of the chemicals they were using and their effects on humans and the environment was limited. The chemical 2,4,5-T is the source of the dioxin.
At the same briefing, on January 24, 1985, Mr. Walter stated that in 1983, defence headquarters became concerned over the potential for environmental damage due to the migration and persistence of picloram, which is the main ingredient in Tordon pellets. Several other defence establishments show that some migration of these chemicals occurs in very sandy soil.
This statement alone challenges the federal government's and DND's assurance that these chemicals were never sprayed at any other military base in Canada. The Canadian government, the New Brunswick cabinet and DND knew as early as 1964 of the toxic and persistent nature of these chemicals, yet they said nothing. They did nothing to prevent further exposures, sickness, diseases and, yes, even deaths.
Dr. Dwernychuk, who is probably the foremost authority on these forever toxic chemicals has stated to the news media repeatedly that it makes no difference if these chemicals were registered for use in Canada—they never should have been sprayed. He said that dioxin can last 100 years in the soil and soldiers in the training area and civilians in the surrounding area would have been adversely affected. He said that exposure to these chemicals can alter our DNA, and this can be passed on through seven to 10 generations.
Dr. Meg Sears has presented that the Gagetown fact-finding project was seriously flawed and that Base Gagetown is still contaminated. The Canadian government and DND hired the chemical industry itself to carry out the health risk assessment of Gagetown's harmful chemical use. They called that an independent and impartial study. Our government then hired that company's founder to head up the peer review of its work at Gagetown. This, in my opinion, is a conflict of interest that clearly illustrates the need for a fully independent public inquiry into the fallacy they call “fact-finding”.
It is the hope of Brats in the Battlefield that the convening of this long-overdue standing committee—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Could you wind up your presentation? You're well past your five minutes.
Chairman, Brats In The Battlefield Association Inc.
Okay.
What we hope to accomplish here is to advance the interests of Gagetown's veterans and their families, and of the civilians living in Gagetown's surrounding area; obtain full compensation for those harmed by the use of carcinogenic defoliants at Gagetown; engage the federal government's public position on the use of defoliants at Gagetown, which Brats in the Battlefield views as intentionally misleading; seek full acknowledgement from the federal government that millions of litres and kilograms of defoliants were sprayed at Gagetown from 1956 to the present day; and seek a commitment that the federal government and Veterans Affairs Canada will immediately embrace and adopt all aspects of the U.S. PACT Act in regard to Canadian military members being exposed to harmful chemicals; and that the federal government—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. Goode, we're going to have to leave it there. You're well past your time. It's all right. You can work that back in when members start asking you questions.
Dr. Salisbury, you have five minutes.
Colonel Retired) David Salisbury (Medical Doctor, As an Individual
Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the vital issue of safeguarding the health of Canada's military personnel through a population health approach to environmental hazards.
My name is David Salisbury. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces medical services for over 28 years. After initial work as a general-duty medical officer and flight surgeon, I completed a master's degree in occupational health and earned a board certification in the U.S., as well as a Royal College fellowship in Canada in aerospace medicine and community medicine.
For five years, I was the commanding officer of the Canadian Forces Environmental Medicine Establishment in Toronto, and, along with Lieutenant Greg Cooke, I designed and implemented the revamped directorate of force health protection within the health services branch in the early 2000s.
I retired from the Canadian Armed Forces in 2004, as the director of that organization, to move into civilian life as the medical officer of health for the City of Ottawa.
It has been more than 20 years since I wore the uniform, but my interest in occupational medicine and public health and my concern for the health of our men and women in uniform have not waned.
Today, I will focus on the health threats that our troops face, particularly those stemming from toxic environmental hazards both on the modern battlefield and at home in garrison. These threats, alongside infectious diseases and industrial exposures, directly impact our military's operational readiness and the long-term health outcomes of all DND personnel, both those in the CAF and civilian employees of the DND.
First of all, allow me to set the context. Historically, disease and environmental hazards have caused more casualties and impaired more military operations than combat itself. From the impact of trench fever in World War I to the devastating effects of malaria during World War II's Burma campaign, and now to the widespread respiratory illnesses linked to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lesson is clear. Prevention is as important as combat training. Protecting our troops requires us to anticipate and address health threats inherent to modern conflict environments as well as those present in our domestic military facilities.
The modern battlefield and Canadian bases, which are essentially miniature industrial sites, present new and complex health challenges. It has been estimated by some that more than 10 million new chemicals and chemical formulations are introduced into the environment each year. Canada assesses approximately 450 new substances annually under the new substances notification regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The human health risks of most of these substances remain unknown or poorly understood.
Today's military operations often occur in regions where environmental hazards are amplified by human action; for example, depleted uranium and other heavy metals in armour-piercing munitions pose long-term risks of cancer and other diseases. The destruction of industrial facilities during combat releases hazardous chemicals such as benzene and asbestos, which contaminate air, soil and water. Modern weaponry and vehicles often use advanced composites and metals, which release toxic fumes upon destruction or combustion. Burn pits commonly used to dispose of waste in war zones emit carcinogenic toxins linked to respiratory illnesses, cancers and other chronic conditions. Solvents and fuels used in operating modern weapon systems contain substances known to be neurotoxic or substances so new that their health impacts are largely unknown.
These environmental risks compound the traditional health challenges of deployment. However, we must also recognize the threats closer to home. Garrisons are, in many ways, miniature industrial complexes. The day-to-day work of maintaining vehicles, aircraft and ships—I threw the ships in because I heard Mr. Tolmie's reference to the navy; I have not served with the navy—involve handling hazardous materials. Training exercises expose personnel to industrial risks that are often poorly documented. For example, long-term exposure to solvents, fuels and heavy metals can lead to chronic health conditions if not properly mitigated.
The CAF has long had a preventive medicine capability, traditionally focused on infectious disease and hazards such as noise and physical injury. However, since the early 2000s, significant progress has been made in addressing the additional toxic risks of the modern battlefield and, to some extent, domestic operations.
The creation of force health protection and the deployment of industrial hygienists have been crucial steps forward in preventing disease in our forces. Predeployment assessments now include environmental and occupational health evaluations, which are a practice that has undoubtedly prevented countless exposures and illnesses.
These are commendable advancements that lay a strong foundation for the next phase of health protection, which includes the ongoing assessment and documentation of industrial exposures at home and abroad.
This issue is not just about immediate or long-term health—
Col (Ret'd) David Salisbury
Should I wrap it up?
To conclude, I urge this committee to continue prioritizing health protection as a cornerstone of our defence strategy. Enhance preventive measures, strengthen health surveillance systems, invest in research and innovation, formally recognize that veterans can and do develop occupational diseases long after their service, and consider the designation of presumptive diagnosis, as mentioned by the previous two speakers, in the PACT Act.
By building on this progress from the past two decades and adopting a comprehensive population health approach, we can ensure that the Canadian Forces remain resilient, operationally capable and, above all, cared for.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
I'd like to run three rounds, if we can. We have two hours, or whatever is left of the two hours. We'll start with a six-minute round and see where we go from there.
Mr. Tolmie, you have six minutes.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Salisbury, thank you very much for your service to our country. I appreciate your being here, and being here in person.
I also appreciate our guests who are online.
I have a couple of questions that I'd like to start with.
Ms. Beauchamp, I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate your being here.
As a child, how many bases did you live on? When we say “base brats”, terminology is obviously....
As an Individual
I lived in Halifax; Wainwright; Gagetown; London, Ontario; and Ottawa. I'm still in Ottawa.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you.
While I still have you, we've heard from other witnesses from the Treasury Board, Health Canada and Environment Canada who have talked about the EPA list and the chemicals on the list that are hazardous and of concern.
I asked them if they had included chemicals that the military has used, and we got a vague answer. In your testimony, you mentioned that the lists did not contain all the chemicals. My understanding is that you've read the list. Have you read the list?
As an Individual
I've read the list that is in the fact-finding project.
We have a document that states what was sprayed in Gagetown. It somewhat differed from what they focused on in the fact-finding project. They had a tendency to focus on Agent Orange alone, but there were other substances, whether sprayed separately or individually, that they didn't concentrate on.
There were 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, which were sprayed for numerous years. I think it was done in 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959. Those two chemicals mixed together are the mixture of Agent Orange, so they were spraying it well before 1966 and 1967. There was also Tordon 101—I think it's called that—which is a liquid dioxin. There's also Tordon 10K, which is pellets that were sprayed. There's a huge list.
In my brief, I linked to one of the documents in which they identified all of the substances that they sprayed, but they don't actually focus on all of them.
Where the problem lies with some of these chemicals, from what I have read and researched, is with the mixtures of Agent Orange, Agent White and Agent Purple, which were sprayed. Gary can talk more to that because he understands it a little better than I do. However, there's what's called a TCDD component, which is a by-product. That's where there's a dioxin that's more toxic than just the 2,4-D and the 2,4,5-T alone.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you for that answer.
I will transfer over to Mr. Goode.
Thank you very much for joining us.
Mr. Goode, I understand that you presented to a Maine commission on Agent Orange.
Could you share what their reaction was, and can Canada learn anything from what they're doing down there?
Chairman, Brats In The Battlefield Association Inc.
Yes, I'd be happy to.
That Maine commission study of Gagetown's harmful chemical use was spearheaded by the president of Maine's Senate, Senator Troy Jackson. I provided that commission with the DND document I alluded to in my introduction, which clearly points out the quantity of chemicals sprayed—when, where and how much. It was voted unanimously in their legislature, in the end, that they wanted to carry this on. They wanted to move forward with that commission's study. Unfortunately, the governor at the time was a stickler for details. She wouldn't sign 40-some applications for different things. This just happened to be one of them.
There's a good chance it will move forward in the near future, because Mr. Jackson is running for governor. If he gets that, it'll definitely be moving forward.
Conservative
Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you.
I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Ms. Beauchamp.
Have you read the list that is out with respect to chemicals on the EPA list, and have you noticed anything that is not on the list that you feel should be?
Chairman, Brats In The Battlefield Association Inc.
I have not read the list as extensively as Eileen has.
However, 2,3,7,8-T is highly polluted with dioxins, and 2,4,5-T is highly polluted with that particular chemical. It's highly toxic. It can remain in the soil for 100 years or longer. It can cause genetic damage that can be passed along for seven to 10 generations, according to Dr. Dwernychuk, who—
