Transport Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[Seth Cain]

The approach for this is that the departments responsible for their sites have to consider whether there's reason to notify the public centrally—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

But do you track that? You throw it up on a website or whatever you do; you allow the department.... Do you then solicit any feedback as to what steps have been taken?

[Seth Cain]

No, we haven't, historically, done that across the program.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We have 24,000 sites.

With respect to the Big Dock, there was an assessment done, and there was contamination. Was it your guidance to Transport Canada to provide notice to the surrounding communities?

[Seth Cain]

The federal contaminated sites action plan guidance would—and at that time did—include the advice to engage community members with regard to the contamination.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

You provided Transport Canada with advice to disclose this to first nations.

[Seth Cain]

We provide general advice to custodians, and that advice recommends involving community members when there's the potential for them to be exposed to or near contamination.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We've heard testimony and have seen the minister fully admitting that there was not specific disclosure. There was some sort of.... I wouldn't even say that it was inadvertent disclosure with respect to the divestiture of a dock. However, you would say that this was inconsistent with your advice, then—that Transport Canada either ignored your advice or just simply didn't follow it.

[Seth Cain]

I would also observe that the federal contaminated sites action plan, the program that we have had in place since 2005, does provide guidance. It provides recommendations. It has had very limited funding to support departments like Transport Canada with what we call assessment work, the initial number of steps to identify.... They've done their best, given the funding that we've not been able to give them.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Cain.

I just want to be clear that your department gave advice for notification to happen, and it didn't happen. That's correct with respect to the Big Dock. Is that correct?

[Seth Cain]

The advice the program provides recommends engaging community members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence, and thank you, Mr. Cain.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the staff who are here to answer our questions.

You're used to talking about zoning and the use of sites that belong to the federal government. On that point, I would like to ask you for clarification.

The first nations representatives told us that the intended use category of the wharf wasn't really displayed and that the wharf was used for family activities, since there's a park next door. However, the wharf has been classified as a commercial port.

Tell me a bit about how you evaluated the use of the wharf. What studies did the department rely on? How did the department take into account family or tourism activities, such as water sports, swimming and fishing?

[Stephanie Hébert]

First and foremost, what I do want to say is we definitely acknowledge that we didn't sufficiently engage the nations in doing the studies that we have done to date. While there was some disclosure that occurred through divestiture conversations, I think what we've learned today and what I really want to emphasize today is that engagement in understanding the uses is really critical, I think, to having confidence in the reports, and also really assuring the community that human health and environmental health are being protected.

When the risk assessment was done, you're correct that it was done using a commercial risk assessment. The other categories are industrial, residential or agricultural. Although we used a commercial assessment, it was, for lack of a better term, a “commercial plus”. It was used to consider the uses of the port, to the extent that we knew them, and again, we should have validated them, including fishing, boating and swimming, as well as any sorts of traditional uses. The uses were taken into account.

In terms of looking at potential exposure, it was a commercial assessment, but very precautionary frames were used to really make sure that the risk analysis was robust. I think that we can improve upon those areas. Over the course of our testimony, I'm happy to unpack some of those exposure pathways, some of the frame of what the commercial assessment would have looked like.

I think as we have a better understanding of how the community is using the port, how the nations are using the port, we may need to shift that assessment from a commercial assessment to a residential one.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

My time is quickly running out, but can you explain to me how the studies conducted can have different consequences, depending on whether the wharf is used for commercial purposes or family purposes? Does Transport Canada take its responsibilities to human beings seriously?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Yes, absolutely. At the end of the day our understanding was that there weren't risks to human and environmental health, taking into account all of these, and we did look at a number of things.

In the risk assessment there were, I think, two really important recommendations. One was the concern with regard to groundwater, and the other was with the proximity of wells. A search was done in terms of wells. It's really important that they not be in proximity to the site, and so a verification was done that none was within 60 metres, which is usually the distance that is established, None were in proximity, and we validated that against the Alberta well inventory.

The other step we looked at—and this was also brought to bear in the environmental site assessment phase three study—is in terms of the flow of the groundwater. It doesn't flow from the site towards the community; it actually goes towards the lake. Therefore, it was felt that the risk to groundwater and the risk to wells that might be in proximity would be potentially low.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

As part of this study, we've heard about the ports asset transfer program.

For the good of this committee, explain the benefits of transferring port assets to the community.

[Stephanie Hébert]

There are three things I would say.

First and foremost, the port asset transfer program is grounded in the belief that local communities are best placed to manage these assets and this infrastructure and to make sure that this ultimately meets the needs of the community.

Second, I think it is really important in any divestiture or any transfer that everything be disclosed. Letters of intent are signed. We sign agreements, and we have to share everything.

Third, as part of the negotiation process, if there is contamination, that is fundamentally taken into account in any negotiation. We will absolutely assume any liability that we might have, and we make sure that this is discussed and recognized in the context of a transfer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the many witnesses for being with us. I assume that, among the group of people who are here with us, someone will have the necessary knowledge to answer the question I'm going to ask.

In the letter that the Minister of Transport sent to the communities and first nations living in Fort Chipewyan, it was mentioned that, according to the latest risk assessment report, there would be no risks to human health in activities such as swimming, launching, traditional food management and recreational activities, among others.

I'm wondering to what extent that can be asserted. I know that in science, there is a basic principle of exposure, in this case exposure to contaminants. For example, if I have radon in my basement and I spend an hour a day there, it doesn't look like I'm at too much risk of getting cancer. However, if I'm there 12 hours a day, I may be at greater risk of that happening.

In this case, that statement doesn't tell us much about the degree of risk involved. Is it the same for someone who swims in that water every day as it is for someone who swims in that water once a year? How do we find out?

[Stephanie Hébert]

The risk assessment outlines potential exposure scenarios. The consultant who would have done this indicated the parameters they would have used for a commercial assessment. They looked at all age groups except an infant under the age of six months. They assumed that the person would have been on site for approximately eight hours a day. Just to give you the comparison, if we had done a residential scenario, it would have been 24 hours a day.

They looked at presence five days a week versus seven, which you would have had in a residential assessment. They looked at 52 weeks a year, but they did annotate that it was to be precautionary, recognizing that the site is frozen for a number of months during the year. Nonetheless, they defaulted to the 52 weeks to have the precautionary period. Then it was looking at contact per day, so they had water contact per day and dermal exposure per day.

These are the types of scenarios that are used to guide. Then, for a risk assessment, they look at the environment and the risks to human health. They'll look at the type, amount and location of the contamination, the presence of people or wildlife that may visit the site, the roots of exposure, and then the physical environmental characteristics of the site, and they'll look at receptors for that exposure to happen and how it can be transmitted.

This would be something that we would redo with the communities and with the involvement of the nations. I think that it's really important for us to better understand if these scenarios were sufficient. Did we sufficiently take into account their interactions with the site? Community foods were considered, but it's important for them to advise—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

If I understand correctly, you have to re-examine the premises that were used to assess the risks to determine whether they're relevant to the current lifestyles of the people who live in Fort Chipewyan. That's the first thing.

Also, you said that the statement made in the assessment would apply to a person who was exposed to contaminants for eight hours a day. Are these typical cases that apply in other situations, but not necessarily in this specific case? I'm just trying to be clear on that.

That would mean that it would be okay for a person to spend eight hours a day in that water, 52 weeks a year. Is that what you're telling me?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Again, that's the scenario that the assessment uses. The scenario tries to be exceptionally conservative, because it is a risk assessment.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

My other question is about dredging.

At the last committee meeting, I asked the witnesses a question about this, but those who were present didn't have the answer.

Transport Canada told the residents of the area to avoid dredging on-site because it could re‑suspend sediment and lead to further contamination.

Is there a way to dredge on site to remove the sediment, or is the only thing to do is leave the sediment in place? Is there or is there not a way to decontaminate the site, if people want to be able to dredge and use the wharf? I do think that's what the people there want.

[Stephanie Hébert]

The short answer is yes, but we have to be careful as we do it, because of what we know in terms of the contamination. It's also because of what we know in terms of the nature of the structural characteristics of the port and also because of what we know in terms of buried infrastructure that is there.

Specifically, this is something that we would have to plan really well to make sure that we do it appropriately. We'd have to plan it well to make sure that we are properly containing any contamination that is on site. For any sediments that are removed that may be contaminated, we'd have to engage in terms of where they would be properly disposed of. We would need community consent for that if it were to be in a landfill.

I'll go really quickly—I'm sorry.

What I will say about the infrastructure is that one of the things we have to be careful of is dredging, because the infrastructure is like a pool. If you lower the water in your pool too much, the sides will collapse. How we would do the dredging is a concern we have with this port. We don't want to in any way harm the structural integrity of the port, so we need to manage the environmental aspects. We need to manage the structural aspects. That is going to require planning, and that's going to require studies, and generally that takes 12 to 18 months.