Evidence of meeting #34 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was land.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.
We'll come back to you.
Mr. Anderson is next.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Thank you very much.
I'm afraid that I have to use English. My French is non-existent, and the only alternative is Spanish, which would probably make a mess for all of us here.
Mr. Villandré, you mentioned that munitions were in the ground there. They told you that it was a low risk in the area they did, and you ran into munitions. Did they give you any timeline for when these munitions become inert in the ground?
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Terrebonne
No, we weren't given any information about the lifespan of these munitions or the impact they may have. We got no information about that.
When the department transferred the land to us in 2014 so that we could build our interchange on it, nobody ever told us the risk would be zero at some point.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Okay. Were you told any size for the munitions and whether they were small munitions or large munitions?
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Terrebonne
They're small munitions. The one that was found in the fall was a small munition. I don't know what calibre it was. That's not my area of expertise.
Any unexploded ordnance is dangerous, of course. It can maim or injure someone. That's why we take no risks.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Of course. In effect, you were given no technical information whatsoever about the site.
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Terrebonne
No. We weren't given any technical information.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Okay. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry. There's a bit of a lag in translation, so if I wait a minute, it's because I'm listening to that.
Ms. Perreault, you mentioned a figure of $35 million. I'm trying to clarify that in my mind. I'm not clear what that was associated with.
Mayoress, City of Shannon
That $35 million was to cover the cost of installing the water system in the municipality of Shannon. That was done from 2004 or 2005 to 2010. It was done in stages.
In total, the federal government invested $35 million to set up that system.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Okay. The federal government paid for that.
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Did the military admit that they are the source of the contamination? Was that ever at any point an issue?
Mayoress, City of Shannon
A citizens' committee filed a lawsuit. TCE is carcinogenic, so the citizens' group sued the federal government, seeking recognition of the causal link between drinking water contaminated with TCE and cancer cases in Shannon, but the Shannon sample was too small to prove it.
Did national defence admit to being at fault, in the sense that it admitted it had contaminated the water? My understanding is that, yes, it did. I don't think the contamination was deliberate. In the 1950s, when they were using these solvents, they didn't know how harmful they could be. The fact has been acknowledged.
However, should national defence, in good conscience, have notified people sooner that contamination had occurred? We know that, by the time it was detected, the department had known about it for several years. I don't want to get into those details, because I don't know why nobody said anything. I don't know if it was knowledge or communication that was lacking. I have no idea.
However, I know that the courts recognized the federal government's responsibility and held the federal government to account for the contamination. Then, from 2023 to 2025, financial compensation was awarded to people who lived there, particularly in places where there were plumes of contaminants. The compensation was awarded primarily for the inconvenience caused by the contamination.
However, the federal government has not acknowledged a link between disease or cancer cases and contamination. In addition, the link could not be scientifically demonstrated because the sample size was too small.
Does that answer your question?
Conservative
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Yes, it does. Thank you very much.
I want to clarify something else. You mentioned that the property values have not lowered. They've recouped, in any event. Does that mean the effects on the water table are gone now? Have they remediated themselves through time, or do they still need remediation?
Mayoress, City of Shannon
Home values have not actually gone down. This all happened 26 years ago. I don't want to tell you anything I'm not sure of. Have actual home sales declined, though? Did fewer people move to Shannon in the early 2000s? The answer is probably yes, because people were afraid. There was a lot of contamination. Honestly, it was significant and devastating.
Today, we know where the plumes of contaminants are. Now that we have a water supply system, it's safe. There's no direct contamination. TCE is a heavy metal that tends to go down into the water table. It doesn't go up. As long as you don't touch the water table and put holes in it, there's no danger.
We always have to be careful. I should say that national defence has set up monitoring wells. It does a lot of monitoring. It's doing its job. It's not leaving things unmonitored. As a result, people are now coming to live in Shannon, and they're safe in Shannon. There are no contamination issues.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Ms. Perreault.
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Ms. Idlout, it's over to you for five minutes.
Liberal
Lori Idlout Liberal Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Before I ask my question of each of you, I want to give a little bit of context. This is my first day officially as a member of the national defence committee, and I'm very excited to join it. I understand that this is a continuation of a study that started earlier. I saw in our briefing materials, for example, that there was already testimony provided by Dr. Wang, who testified that Canada's Arctic and the north have contaminated sites as well. He testified that these sites tend to be either “forgotten” or “poorly monitored”.
In order to bridge your experience, and to try to make sure I can have some useful information from you, could you share some advice or some suggestions? What could improve, in terms of relationships between municipalities and the federal government, so that we could ensure that these sites that are either forgotten in the north or poorly monitored are getting the attention they deserve?
Maybe I'll ask Sarah to answer first, and then I'll go to Serge.
Thank you.
Mayoress, City of Shannon
That's a great question.
It's actually a hard one to answer because national defence is a department that ensures Canadian security. I would imagine it's subject to security imperatives that go beyond the concerns of cities like mine. I get that.
However, your question is relevant. I would say that, at the very least, information must be shared.
We can't stand by doing nothing when we know there's contamination. I'm not saying the contamination is deliberate, but as soon as someone knows there's contamination, there's a social responsibility. Beyond the fact that national defence is responsible for Canadian security, it also has a social responsibility to ensure the health and safety of people living on Canadian soil. That absolutely has to be taken into account.
When I answered your colleague's question earlier, I would have liked to add one thing. TCE presents no danger now, but the fact remains that the soil in the town of Shannon is still contaminated with TCE. We have some knowledge now, but will we discover something else 20 years from now? I don't know.
We know that we live on contaminated ground, and that's always going to be a concern. It matters. It's extremely important. National defence needs to be more responsive when it comes to communicating and being transparent in this type of situation. Every time this kind of thing happens, people lose trust in the Canadian government. That's serious because these are Canadian citizens living in Canada.
Basically, the government has to be transparent, it has to be open, it has to communicate and, above all, it has to collaborate. Those are the key words to keep in mind.
Liberal
Lori Idlout Liberal Nunavut, NU
Thank you so much, Sarah.
You can use up the rest of the time, Serge, if you'd like.
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Terrebonne
Thank you very much.
I agree with Ms. Perreault.
I would add that communication is key, because there is social, economic and environmental responsibility. As I said in my introduction, if we work together, we can use this site to drive economic development. With all the challenges Canada is facing, we need it. The land could also be used for housing. That's important too. There's a program to build more housing in Canada. I think we can work together to develop this site.
It starts with good communication to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that, in the case of Terrebonne, the federal government takes full responsibility for decontamination.
Then, through communication and collaboration, we can develop part of the site and ensure conservation. As I said earlier, seven square kilometres of land needs to be cleaned up. Reasonable, well-thought-out economic development would cover just 3% or 4% of the total area.
That said, we need open and transparent communication with our partners at national defence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Mr. Villandré.
Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, it's back to you.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Given that you were initially told the risk was low, the government's official response to the parliamentary petition signed by 1,500 people and tabled in 2023 by my former colleague, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, is interesting. The petition called for all kinds of things, such as accelerating the decontamination process.
I won't dwell on the request; I'll talk about the response. According to the department, preliminary estimates indicated that significant work would be required on the site over a period of approximately 30 years before the property could be considered safe for use. They say that the risk is low, but it will take 30 years for it to be safe.
What am I not understanding?
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Terrebonne
It's certainly a large piece of land. As I said, it covers seven square kilometres. Decontaminating that much land is certainly a lot of work. I don't know what estimates or data they're looking at that would lead them to say that it will take that long.
If we want the site to be safe for everyone, the federal government must take responsibility. Only the government has information about the amount of contaminants, or at least it has access to the data that enables it to say it will take up to 30 years.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
There is still a lack of transparency. You yourself don't know exactly where that information comes from.
Is that correct?