National Defence committee  In 30 seconds, there's no way I can say it. However, one thing I do want to say is that you just need to avoid.... There are lessons to be learned from something like the Grassy Narrows kind of compensation. That should be something the government really seriously thinks about, and we should avoid any other cases like that.

National Defence committee  First of all, I have to say that, at this time, we don't really know too much about what's left there. I'm using Churchill only as an example. That's the site I know the most. Still, we don't have much information. A lot of these things were poorly documented and even poorly studied.

National Defence committee  Definitely. Even though we call mercury a legacy, it's still ongoing. The major sources have been placed under control, but, yes, mercury continues to be used in certain applications. With the new international treaty called Minamata Convention on Mercury, which Canada signed on to, there is a plan; there are limitations on how those practices can continue.

National Defence committee  There are actually extensive studies going on in this country as part of a research network called ArcticNet. We've been monitoring contaminants, as well, as part of a northern contaminants program within this country. In many cases, there have been decades of data, both from ecosystems and food items, all the way to human health, but in the meantime...

National Defence committee  I think there are a lot of ongoing monitoring programs that would include, say, cadmium, as you mentioned, right? Drinking water is tested, commonly, and for those contaminants, the drinking water guidelines are very well established. I would assume that the health authorities or whoever is monitoring in a long-term program should have access to that data.

National Defence committee  I have no idea.

National Defence committee  Yes, mercury is the contaminant that I study the most. I think I can use that example. I'm not pointing fingers and saying that DND is responsible for mercury contamination in the country. It's only a small player in a big, complicated picture, and we do have long-term monitoring from the environment, from water and air, but also from fish.

National Defence committee  I can address that a little bit, but maybe Dr. Sauvé could add to it. Yes, that's what we call “BTEX”, right? We're talking about the relatively small organic hydrocarbons. Those often are associated with petroleum oil, let's say, as well as other sources. Those are not necessarily long-lasting, so if there's any good thing, those typically do not last in the environment for very long, but when you have them in groundwater, they still could persist for a relatively long time.

National Defence committee  For PFAS, I will defer to my colleague here.

National Defence committee  That's what we call PAHs. Again, those are known or probable human carcinogens, and again, the bottom line is that it's always about the concentrations, right? As an environmental chemist, I can tell you that if I have good enough detection limits, the chances are that I could detect just about everything in any media.

National Defence committee  Yes, I've heard an anecdotal story, and I don't really have the primary literature to back me up, but I think what you mention is probably related to Churchill. I thought I heard a story that could be related to that. As I've mentioned, in Churchill you had a quite extensive military operation by the U.S. during the rocket-launching era, but I'm actually not aware of such things happening in Winnipeg.

National Defence committee  To add to that, as I mentioned, I think that in this country we have a lot of expertise: from academia, from the consulting industry and from the government. You have ECCC and Health Canada. When we talk about PFAS or legacy contaminants, we have a lot of expertise. It's more about how we get that expertise involved.

National Defence committee  I agree. I think on the AI side, equally, there's a lot of room to play as well, especially when we talk about those emerging contaminants. There are just too many of them. We talk about the thousands, the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands when it comes to PFAS alone, for example.

National Defence committee  Yes, especially in cases when you're trying to pinpoint what chemicals. If we think about the health impacts experienced by staff or by committee members, often there are so many other complicating factors, not necessarily from that contaminated site, but there might be other exposures as well.

National Defence committee  Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, honourable members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, for inviting me to share my perspectives. My name is Dr. Feiyue Wang. I'm a professor and a Canada research chair, tier one, in Arctic environmental chemistry at the University of Manitoba.