Transport Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I appreciate that.

Ms. Hébert, could you table with this committee the letter that shared the contamination? The letters that have been tabled with this committee up to this point do not actually stipulate or say the word “contamination”. They just show the environmental reports. It is worth noting that only two of the 12 that the minister said existed were actually shared.

Could you please table that with the committee?

[Stephanie Hébert]

I can, absolutely. We are in the midst of doing document production. We'll make sure it's there.

What I do want to qualify is that the letter was sent to the representative who was hired by the nation to interact with Transport Canada. When you see it, it won't be to the first nation. It will be to the individual who was authorized.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Was any communication given to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo? This dock is actually on municipal land, not on first nations land. Was any communication given to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo or to the Province of Alberta?

[Stephanie Hébert]

The conversations would have focused on asking if there were alternative routes. Were there contingency plans in place to support emergency evacuation? How critical was the TC wharf to those plans?

We were told that there were other alternatives and that they were not contingent upon using the Transport Canada wharf.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Respectfully, someone in Ottawa in their ivory tower, not going to the community, does not actually understand the needs of the community. When the community is saying, “We need this”....

The fact that Transport Canada chose not to listen is very disappointing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Goodridge.

Mr. Iacono, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This problem occurred under the previous government. For the 10 years they were in power, what was done? What instructions did you get? What was taken from that period of time and forwarded to the 2017 report? Was anything forwarded to the 2017 report? Was there some action? What action was done during the 10 years they were in power, or was there simply inaction—and why?

[Stephanie Hébert]

What I will do is speak generically in terms of how we manage these kinds of situations.

In this particular instance, are you asking about what information would have been shared or about work that was done?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What was shared? What was done? What was told? What directives did Transport Canada get from the Conservative government? What was your role?

Going forward, in 2014 there was an offer. The government made an offer to sell this port. Why? Why was it rejected? You must have answers on all this. You must have been involved. Maybe you weren't personally involved, but Transport Canada was involved in those 10 years under the Conservative government. What role did they play? What did they discover? What was shared with the next government?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have a point of order. I'm going to stop your clock at one minute and 29 seconds, Mr. Iacono.

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I appreciate what the member opposite is trying to do, but quite frankly, we have reports that go back to 1997, when the Liberals were in power. This isn't a blame game of whether this is Liberal, NDP, Conservative, etc. This is the fact that Transport Canada hasn't made decisions and hasn't informed this community. The fact that the member opposite is trying to point back 15 years is pretty ludicrous. They haven't done anything for nine years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That wouldn't be a point of order.

I'll allow Mr. Iacono to continue with his line of questioning as he sees fit.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I'll allow you to answer my few questions.

[Stephanie Hébert]

With regard to contaminated sites, Transport Canada is currently managing 238 sites. We have closed 566. I'm quite pleased to see the progress that has been made in tackling the contaminated sites, and some of these sites that we have are legacy sites.

Also, under the contaminated sites program,—and I have colleagues here who can probably be a little more eloquent than I can be—we would go through various iterations of studies because we would want to understand the history of the site. We would undertake a site visit. We would produce an environmental site assessment, which would be sort of a first report. We then would build on that to get evidence and to do sampling to better understand the nature of the contamination. If we found that it's there and that it's of concern, then we would drill deeper and do a third site assessment and do much more detailed sampling. We would do ground samples. We would want to understand the nature and the extent of the contamination, and the volume. That would ultimately be translated into a risk assessment. There are 10 steps that we follow.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I'm more concerned about the role that the government of the day played. Why, in 2014, did the government of the day, the Conservative government, want to sell this dock? What did it know?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Under the ports asset transfer program in 2014, it built off of a previous program that existed. Again, it's about these properties being declared surplus. They were not deemed to be core to the mandate for Transport Canada. Again, it goes back to the belief or the notion that communities are fundamentally better placed to manage these assets in accordance with their needs. Also, if it's done right, it can be used to support regional economic development and to meet the needs of communities.

With the ports asset transfer program having been created and having been built off of a previous program, the name of which escapes me, that became the opportunity for us to initiate negotiations not only for this site but also for a number of sites throughout the country. Then we would have followed the process that I previously mentioned, which would have included the disclosure of information about the characteristics of the site. That would be site assessment as well as with regard to the contamination.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Does the 2017 report englobe all the factors of the previous assessments? Is it something of an evolution of findings, or is it a report within itself?

[Stephanie Hébert]

My understanding is that it builds on what is found in previous reports and it goes into much more detail. It looks at risks and pathways to potential harm to human and environmental health. Each one of these reports is iterative. In each one of these reports, as we learn more about the sites and about the nature of the contamination, we'll build on it. If we discover new things, they will get scoped in, and we will include those in our investigations.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have one last question. What was the role of the province?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, you don't have time for a question, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Iacono. It was a good try.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The toxicologist who testified at the last meeting told us that, even if we decided to dredge the site and decontaminate it, the contamination could come back if the problem wasn't solved at the source. In other words, you could do this work for nothing and be forced to start over.

What means do you have to determine the source of the contamination at the site? Is it just a matter of doing an on‑site analysis, or does it have to go further? If you need to go further, do you have the jurisdiction to do so?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Transport Canada agrees with her assessment that if we were to remediate the sediment in the port, it would not mean that there wouldn't be other possibilities of contamination. It is an active port. It is an active wharf, so there's contamination from that. There's contamination from the nature of how it was constructed. It's creosote-coated lumber.

There also is the risk of contamination that may be coming from lands adjacent to the uplands. I think the minister would have referred to that in her remarks. That is something that we would need to better understand, and for that we would need to work with provincial entities to better understand the nature of that contamination and whether or not that contamination was coming on to Transport Canada lands, because we would want to make sure that if we did remediate, this didn't reoccur as a reoccurring problem. That's one of the challenges with the site.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, you have two and a half minutes, sir.