ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 15, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bob Mills

Á

1125

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones (Director General, Environment, Department of National Defence)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Á

1130

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Á

1135

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

Ms. Karen Ellis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence)

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Á

1140

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Karen Ellis

Á

1145

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John McCallum

Ms. Karen Ellis

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Á

1150

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mrs. Ginger Stones

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Ms. Karen Ellis

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1155

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. John McCallum

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Â

1200

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Karen Ellis

Mr. John McCallum

Ms. Karen Ellis

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1205

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. John McCallum

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Karen Ellis

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Mr. John McCallum

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 023

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 15, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome the minister and departmental officials.

[English]

    We welcome all of you in the room. This is where the environment and sustainable development attempt to thrive--or sometimes barely survive, depending on the issues.

    Today we are very pleased and honoured to have the minister with us. We welcome you. We know of your concern for the environment and sustainable development from past activities. You have inherited a department that comes in touch with the environment in a variety of ways, perhaps more than other departments.

    Your predecessors have attempted to come to grips with the requirements of the Auditor General, which to the recollection of our committee date back to the Auditor General's report of 1999, then of 2001, and more recently 2003.

    It's interesting to note in the 2001 report the reference by the Auditor General, paragraph 12.279 in the conclusion, that “The Department has taken steps to address our concerns.... However, it has carried out few recommendations fully, and it has revised and extended many of the completion dates for its action plans.”

    Today we are mostly motivated by the 2003 report, particularly the references to the damage being caused to the fisheries by certain activities we will hear about in a moment and to issues still outstanding that need to be resolved, particularly those related to energetic materials and difficulties in implementing the Auditor General's report. We are all very conscious of the importance of the Auditor General's role, I'm sure.

    So we welcome you, Mr. Minister, in a special way. We look forward to your intervention and the interventions by your officials. As is customary, once you have completed your presentation, there will be a full round of questions. The floor is yours, and welcome again.

    Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.

    I'm delighted to be here. I'm told I'm the first Minister of National Defence to appear before this committee, at least in the collective memory of my department. Your memory may be longer, Mr. Chair, but so far as I know, it's a fairly rare event. So I'm very pleased, as minister of defence, to be here today.

    Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the two people accompanying me at the table. Karen Ellis is assistant deputy minister for Infrastructure and Environment and Ginger Stones is director general, Environment. We're here, as you know, to discuss chapter 7 of the 2003 Auditor General's report, which deals with the environmental stewardship of military training and test areas.

    At the beginning I'd like to say what I said in the House when this report was first tabled, that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces do take their environmental responsibilities very seriously. I'll just tell you one quick story to illustrate that.

    A few weeks ago I was in Wainwright, watching something in the order of 5,000 of our soldiers with tanks and other military vehicles over much land. Ms. Ellis was there at a somewhat different time, and she noticed they were supposed to ford a river; this would be many soldiers rushing across a river in pursuit of an imaginary enemy. But because there were four species of fish spawning in the river, in order to avoid doing possible damage they constructed a fake bridge on the field itself and ran over that. Ten or twenty years ago you wouldn't have seen thousands of soldiers on the field behaving in that manner.

    It's just a small story, reflected in my fish tie today--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    Mr. John McCallum: --but I think it does indicate a changing attitude on the part of our military and the defence department towards environmental issues.

    Defence has had an environmental program in place since the late 1980s, and our sustainable development strategy has repeatedly been identified by the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development as being among the best in government. While I know we have problems and challenges, I might also mention that my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has a number of times singled out the Department of National Defence for the seriousness with which we take our environmental responsibilities.

    There are more than 200 environmental professionals, both military and civilian, working in Defence. This year alone we'll be spending in excess of $100 million on the environment. This is a lot of money, and it has grown substantially over the years to reach this level. I think this reflects the department's strong commitment to both health and environmental protection.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, we welcome the constructive recommendations offered in the Auditor General's report. This being said, I'd like to put a few things into perspective.

    The Auditor General examined practices at all of DND's major land training areas. This represents over 1.7 million hectares, or 94 per cent of Defence's total land.

[English]

    After a detailed examination extending back eight years, the report identified only five isolated incidents where we did not perform as well as we should have. In several of these cases the report acknowledges that we've taken corrective action. In other words, considering the very broad scope and timeframe of the audit, I think these results confirm that overall, Defence has several very good programs as well as a solid environmental record.

    Now I'll turn to some of the specific issues contained in the Auditor General's report.

    Chapter 7 begins by addressing instances where some of our training-related activities may not have respected federal legislation on the environment. One of the cases mentioned is a possible violation of the Fisheries Act through the deposit of batteries and other material in the waters off Nanoose Bay. In fact, an environmental assessment conducted in 1996 found that there were no negative effects on fish or fish habitat, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans later confirmed these findings.

    We're currently working to update the 1996 assessment and will continue to collaborate with Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that we continue acting in accordance with federal environmental legislation.

[Translation]

    A second case relates to action taken by Defence to mitigate damage in streams at Canadian Forces Station Aldergrove in British Columbia.

    On this, I would mention that the Auditor General acknowledged that we have taken action to correct the problem. I believe that the successful resolution of this issue clearly demonstrates our commitment to environmental stewardship.

[English]

    The third case refers to the silting of streams at Gagetown. Again, I would point out the report also states that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has chosen to work with us in a cooperative manner to deal with this situation as quickly as possible. My department is currently working to obtain the necessary spending authority to resolve the issue.

    Turning now to the use of tools for environmental stewardship, we see the second part of chapter 7 deals with the mechanisms Defence has in place to exercise its environmental responsibilities. The chapter focuses specifically on our Manoeuvre Area Planning System Protocol, or MAPS. This protocol calls for the study of the environmental effects of our various training activities and if necessary for the development and implementation of plans to mitigate these effects.

    Full implementation of this protocol is one of the targets of our sustainable development strategy. Accordingly, we're calling for the priorities that were identified in the mitigation plans to be implemented by the end of March of next year, 2004.

    The third section deals with managing potentially contaminated sites.

[Translation]

    The third section of Chapter 7 addresses Defence's management of potentially contaminated sites, particularly with regard to how we deal with energetic contamination, that is contamination that can occur from firing munitions in training ranges.

    I am pleased to say that we have adopted a proactive and responsible approach in this area. For example, over the last 10 years, we have spent an average of over $40 million per year to clean up contaminated sites.

    The science related to energetic contamination is still a relatively new field and much research remains to be done. Defence is actively studying this matter and its scientists and environmental professionals have established themselves as leaders in this field. Some have even won international awards for their work.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    We do realize that additional policy direction is required on this issue. That's why we're already working on a departmental environmental directive on contaminated sites as well as on an update of our existing contaminated sites through a remediation framework. We're also in the process of gathering information on the composition of ammunition being fired by foreign militaries in Canada.

    The last part of the chapter deals with the sustained use of military training and test areas. Training in a variety of geographic and climatic conditions is critical to the operational readiness of the Canadian Forces. Our various training and test areas offer us this diversity. Since the establishment of any new military training or testing grounds is unlikely, the environmental effects from training must be managed in a responsible manner and in the interest of future military activities.

[Translation]

    This is why we attach such great importance to proper long-term planning. For example, our training and testing zones are mapped out and activities are evenly spread throughout the areas to make sure that no permanent damage is done to the environment.

    To further illustrate our commitment to ecologically sensitive areas, we are working together with Environment Canada to designate part of the Canadian Forces Base Suffield as a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as you can see, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces face unique challenges when it comes to fulfilling our environmental responsibilities. The training and testing activities that are required to maintain a high level of military readiness and proficiency can sometimes have complex environmental implications. Simply put, our environmental commitments and our mandate to protect Canada and contribute to international peace and security are not always mutually supportive, and as an organization we must constantly find ways to reach an appropriate balance that takes into account training needs, environmental protection, and resource availability.

    In a way, you can see this as three points on a triangle that have to be balanced. There are the environmental concerns and the training needs for the military, which have to balanced, and the third aspect of that is the resources available. As I think I've indicated, with our $100 million a year we are putting substantial resources into that. At all points, given those resources, our task is to find the appropriate balance between our environmental responsibilities on the one hand and our need to provide proper training in the Canadian Forces to carry out the basic mission of defence on the other hand.

    I would emphasize that we do take our environmental responsibilities very seriously. The Auditor General's report reminded us that there have been instances where we did not perform as well as we should have. However, I don't believe that a few isolated incidents in the context of vast amounts of land over a long time period are proof there are systemic weaknesses in our environmental stewardship policies, especially since many of the incidents referred to in the report occurred several years before we adopted many of the programs we have today.

[Translation]

    As Minister of National Defence, I am proud of our environmental record and will make sure that our policy remains one of the best in government.

[English]

    So I thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for your attention and would look forward with keen anticipation to any questions you may have.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have a number of questions. We will apply the five-minute rule, and on this occasion we'll do it with a high level of discipline to be in conformity with the spirit of the department we are facing.

    We'll start with Mr. Mills.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to thank the minister for being here.

    In response to what he said, I should have worn my tank tie today, but I guess I blew it.

    Anyway, I'd like to talk about your contaminated sites. The report says that after 13 years you basically haven't dealt with the full extent of the risk, that you haven't ranked the sites, and that there's no long-term, stable plan for how you're going to deal with those.

    What would immediately come to mind initially would be an example of something that happened not that long ago with your Dwyer Hill base and your JTF force, where--and I quote from an article--“Environment Canada officials noted the disputes between the bureaucrats were so prevalent that it interfered with their investigation.” Federal employees simply refused to answer questions. Basically, they concluded it had become a turf war between Defence and Public Works, and as a result over $1 million had to be spent to clean this up.

    Even when a request was made to get the information, it was thwarted until the information commissioner got involved.

    That doesn't really bode well for cooperation in dealing with contaminated sites. I wonder if the minister could answer, is that the way National Defence does its business?

    Mr. John McCallum: First of all, perhaps you should have worn your tank tie because a tank tie and a fish tie would show this delicate balance we have to maintain as we go about our business.

    But on the specific point of your question, I do know something about that. I've been out to Dwyer Hill and I've been briefed on the situation. My understanding is that indeed, notwithstanding certain reports in the media, the two departments do get along well and do work together, and each is aware of its own areas of jurisdiction and responsibility. In this particular case I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because the issue at hand was an 1999 oil spill and that has been dealt with entirely satisfactorily. Given the facts of the matter, I think we have been successful.

    Mr. Bob Mills: But why did it take the information commissioner to get the material? When it was requested, they were told it wasn't available, and they were furthermore told it would take fifty hours of research, yet the commissioner was able to find it literally instantly. Is this report totally fabricated?

    Mr. John McCallum: I am more concerned about environmental issues, and I'm telling you, the environmental problem occurred and it was very satisfactorily dealt with.

    As to what the information commissioner could or could not get information on, I would have to get back to you on that issue. But if you're interested in success in environmental stewardship, this case is one, I would submit, of success.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Have contaminated sites now been ranked as to the ones that are most severe? Is there a game plan both short and long term for dealing with those?

    Mr. John McCallum: As you may know, back in 1996 DND launched the contaminated sites remediation framework, which is a comprehensive risk-based program to identify, assess, clean up, and manage contaminated sites on DND properties. This framework is in the process of being reviewed and updated as required.

    Mr. Bob Mills: So the ranking hasn't been done yet?

    Mr. John McCallum: This is being worked upon. It doesn't prevent us from dealing with these contaminated sites, as I have mentioned, with our $100 million a year. In terms of a public ranking of the severity of all these sites, this is currently being worked on. We have not completed that work, but as I say, this does not keep us from doing the work in terms of dealing with the contaminated sites.

    Mr. Bob Mills: But 1996 was a long time ago.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. John McCallum: I would submit that the most important thing, as I said in the question of Dwyer Hill, is to address the environmental damage. This is what we are doing, both in your particular example at Dwyer Hill and in general in dealing with contaminated sites.

    I've seen that myself, for example, where very much work is being done on that in Goose Bay, and there are many other examples.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Monsieur Bigras, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Minister, for coming here today. My first questions have to do with contaminated sites at CFB Valcartier.

    On May 28, 2001, the Bloc Québécois informed your predecessor of the potential impact of TCE contamination, not only on wells in Shannon, but also on land in the vicinity of CFB Valcartier. On April 28, we learned that the Jacques-Cartier River was now contaminated with TCE.

    When were you informed that the Jacques-Cartier River was contaminated with TCE and what steps have you taken to contain the TCE flowing into this waterway?

    Mr. John McCallum: First of all, we want to be certain that our personnel and the residents of the municipalities near Shannon have access to clean drinking water. We took steps right way to ensure that those affected had access to safe drinking water. At the same time, our priority is to continue working at all levels with Environment Canada and with Quebec's Department of the Environment, as well as with local officials to identify all sources of contamination and to establish a plan of action to deal with the problem.

    I believe we have been proactive on this matter and open to suggestions. However, I will admit that we're dealing with a long-term problem that warrants a solution for the long term. We've yet to come up with the perfect solution and therefore, we're continuing to work with our partners in this regard.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, the Minister seems to be unaware that there are various contaminated sites on the base itself. I'm referring to the North Sector through which the contaminated Jacques-Cartier River flows. When did the Minister first learn of the leaching of TCE into the river? The contamination was reported by the media on April 28. I want to know when you were apprised of the situation? Did you read about it in the papers, for example, in Le Soleil? That's what I want to know. I don't want to hear about Shannon, because that's an entirely different problem. My concern is the Jacques-Cartier River.

    Mr. John McCallum: I gave you a fairly general answer. Perhaps Ms. Stones can add to what I've said.

[English]

    Mrs. Ginger Stones (Director General, Environment, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The department initiated some studies to detail how serious the TCE contamination was in groundwater. We've been doing that study for a number of years. From memory, I would say the study results identified that we did find some TCE concentrations in one or two samples we took from the Jacques Cartier River. From memory, I think we identified it last year. We were investigating whether or not that TCE contamination was a result of the plume we knew about that is in and around the base or whether it originated from other sources.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'm confident that the official has no desire to mislead the committee. I have here an internal memo from the minutes of proceedings of a meeting held at CFB Valcartier on December 7, 1999. A number of outside experts on underground water management for the Valcartier sector held a meeting at which Ms. Roy from Defence Research Establishment Valcartier noted the following, according to paragraph 31 of the minutes of proceedings, and I quote:

Three sources of TCE were identified, all at DREV north, near buildings 7, 67 and 98. [...] The tanks contained TCE used to degrease munitions parts which had leaked through cracks in the concrete walls. Drill holes were sunk to a depth of 20 metres.

    With respect to the plume, the document notes the following in paragraph 32:

Most of the land is drained by the Jacques-Cartier River. Ms. Roy supplied explanations using hydrogeological maps of DND land. The three sources of contamination are located west of the groundwater divide and are all drained by the Jacques-Cartier River.

    Were you aware that the contamination problem and the danger of the plume migrating were identified, not last year, but in fact on December 7, 1999? What steps have been taken since December 7, 1999 to contain the problem and prevent the contamination of the Jacques-Cartier River?

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, since I don't have the document in question, I really can't comment. We could bring the matter up again later, unless of course Ms. Stones would like to say something at this time.

[English]

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: In relation to the particular question about when we knew it actually hit or was in the Jacques Cartier River, about when we found those results, we will definitely get back to you with the details of that, the report that identified it and the results.

    Mr. Chairman, we have been studying the TCE contamination at Valcartier for a number of years. We have spent millions of dollars determining the size of the plume, where it's moving, and how fast it's moving, and we are working on options as to what we can actually do about the plume. We are working with the local community and authorities, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and others as to what the possible options are relative to the TCE contamination.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

    Monsieur Comartin, cinq minutes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Merci, monsieur le président. Mr. Minister, thank you for being here.

    I must say, the rosy picture you're portraying here is not anything near what we got from the Auditor General. I'm looking specifically at page 12 in chapter 7, where she recites these things, that your department:

does not know how many of its sites are contaminated; does not know the full extent of the risks to human health and the environment and the likely cost of cleaning up or managing the sites; does not have a ranking of the worst sites by order of risk; does not provide the long-term, stable funding needed to manage the problem effectively; and, most important, does not have a firm central commitment and leadership or an action plan essential to the timely cleanup or management of the higher-risk contaminated sites under its control.

    Now, that report was given in October 2002 by the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. When I look at this report tabled in the House in April of this year, I don't see anything that has improved.

    So let me ask you, to follow up on Mr. Mills' question, do we even have a timeline as to when we're going to have the sites identified and a timeline to clean them up according to priority?

    Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would point out that we have cleaned up hundreds of such sites over the past decade. I think we have taken a proactive and responsible approach in the management of more than 1,600 known and suspected sites. We do have a risk-based framework for carrying out this work. As I indicated, we are spending $100 million a year.

    In terms of your specific question as to the timeframe in which we expect to have all these sites ranked as to their relative importance, I'll ask the officials. What is the precise timeframe?

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: We had a target in our current sustainable development strategy, to have all our sites remediated or risk-managed by the end of this year. Unfortunately, it will take longer than that.

    The last time I appeared before the committee I did identify the same issue, that we were identifying more sites and adding them to the list, that we would be cleaning them up, but that we would probably not make the target we had identified previously.

    The ranking is going to take some time. We have to use a standardized process on them. We have identified the initial list of the major contaminated sites, and we'll be adding other sites to them as each is evaluated.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. John McCallum: But that does not detract from the fact that all this important work is ongoing, with a substantial increase in budget allocated to it every year.

    I don't want to sound defensive--perhaps I am--but I do think the proof of the pudding is in the eating: it is the outcome one should focus on. Rather than worry about whether the information commissioner received information, I am more interested in looking at whether the oil was cleaned up--and it was. I think this positive story of outcomes can be repeated time and again for a whole variety of sites, even though, as I said at the very beginning, there are many challenges left and much work remaining to be done.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Let me try one more time, Mr. Chair, since Mr. Mills couldn't get it and I haven't been able to get it so far.

    Let me play lawyer. Are we talking about some time in the future, another six months into 2004? Are we talking five years, ten years? Give me a timeframe as to when you're going to have the list finished and prioritized.

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: I would be guessing if I gave you the actual date for when I expect to have the complete list done, but I think it's fair to say that within the next year we will have a much better idea of the larger sites that are currently under investigation and have details of them. Then we can project when we would be able to program them and clean them up.

    It's the smaller sites, the ones that are not handled in Ottawa at the corporate level, that will be taking us a little more time to actually go through and get on the list.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Herron, please.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to follow up on Mr. Comartin's line of questioning, and then I'd like to go specifically to Gagetown itself.

    The issue here is why it's paramount for us to have a complete inventory of what contaminated sites are under your purview and why it's so important to have these ranked. It's because we need to make a determination about which ones pose a risk to human health, which ones pose a risk to groundwater and potentially to human health. Without having that inventory done, individuals can get sick and our environment becomes even more costly to clean up.

    Do we even have an inventory right now? Of the inventory you have collected data on, can you tell the committee how many of those contaminated sites pose a risk to human health today?

    Ms. Karen Ellis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I thank the member for the question, and I really appreciate the concern around the issue that's being raised.

    I can say at the broad level, when we look at any of the issues around environment, we have a framework for assessing the risk and assigning the priority we attach to handling an issue. The first one is around human health and the impact on the environment, followed by legislation, followed by policy, and then followed by the kinds of things that are appropriate to do. So human health and environmental concern are the first factors we look at when we're assessing the priorities on dealing with any of the issues in the environmental portfolio.

    What I can ask now is for Ms. Stones to comment further on the contaminated sites specifically in that framework.

    Mr. John Herron: Can we have a number for how many pose a risk to human health today?

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: Human health is one of the factors we use to prioritize our sites, but perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how we go about doing those prioritizations.

    The Chair: No, don't give us that; this committee doesn't need it. Just try to answer Mr. Herron's question.

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: When we identify a site, we go through the evaluation of whether it presents a risk to human health, whether it presents a risk to the environment, and whether the contamination is moving. As we prioritize them, we clean them up. Our top priority is anything that presents a risk to human health.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. John Herron: We don't need a number; thank you for that.

    Now, I'd like to maybe provide some constructive advice or criticism if I can. The Department of National Defence already has immensely stretched resources. You should be commended for at least having the goodwill to want to play your role responsibly in terms of cleaning up these contaminated sites.

    The real problem, Mr. Chair, is this. The federal government does not have a comprehensive ongoing program to clean up federal contaminated sites in general. What you're doing is, you're robbing from your department precious resources that are required within the military framework to do work that actually should be performed on a comprehensive basis across the government, whether they're Transport contaminated sites, DND sites, or what have you.

    The point is that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have been proposing to have a clean Canada fund, which would be a one-time allocation of $2 billion to clean up federal contaminated sites, so it has a long-term strategy on this track. We're not trying to nitpick and we're not trying to clean up those sites on an ad hoc basis.

    Sir, I would recommend that you bring to your cabinet colleagues the fact that we should address this on an ongoing basis.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Mr. John McCallum: I'll give you a quick answer.

    There are two points. Yes, we have had resources stretched, although we did get a substantial increase in the budget this year. But within the department our commitment to the environment is reflected in this $100 million-a-year figure. Five years ago it might have been in the order of $50 million. Notwithstanding the stretched resources, we have made substantial additions to funding for the environment within the department of defence.

    The second aspect of your question is government-wide. I understand the Treasury Board is currently actively investigating a government-wide program to address this issue, and you can be sure the Department of National Defence will be eager to get its share of such government-wide funding when it becomes available.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

    Mr. Szabo, five minutes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Five minutes goes quickly, so let me go straight to the chase.

    You describe, Mr. Minister, the balancing act, the triangle of the three elements, namely the environmental concerns, the military training, and the resources. I think it certainly does identify three areas of consideration. Certainly, the environmental one is always going to be there, and it's a shared responsibility. The training is an exclusive responsibility. It's the resources one--this is the accountant coming out--that concerns me because you don't have as much control over that.

    I can't think of another department that is by its mandate required to encroach on the environment as a part of doing its job yet possibly not getting the resources to deal with the consequences of doing its job.

    I would ask if maybe your officials could give us an idea of what has happened to the line item in your budget in terms of environment protection and remediation, say, over the last decade. Where are we now? Are we providing you with resources commensurate with the obligations we also expect you to discharge as the defence department?

    Ms. Karen Ellis: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much to the member for this question.

    How I would like to start is by saying that over the past 10 years the Department of National Defence and the forces have had a corporate environmental program. An investment of $370-plus million over 10 years has been distributed across the department so different parts of the organization can address major environmental issues and problems.

    The minister has referred to some specific funding in the order of $100 million in the current fiscal year for us to look at some cleanup projects, contaminated sites, but I would also make another very important point. Our whole policy in the Department of National Defence is to integrate our thinking about environmental considerations into our day-to-day decisions, so across the department you have these line items that have been there. But we now, I think, have made a lot of progress in having people think every day in the decisions they make in their regular business planning about addressing environmental issues as they look at other things. So we've done sort of two streams.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Now, with that as background, what is the estimated cost for remediation of the identified sites?

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: As a result of Treasury Board direction last year we began to put together the liability figures for the contaminated sites we had identified. We had initial figures last year, and we are confirming them every year to firm them up. Currently we have a liability figure of about $769 million on contaminated sites that have been identified and where we are able to assess the liability. There is also a contingent liability figure, and those are the ones where we're not directed to clean those up as we stand.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, it appears this triangle--or as I would like to consider it, a three-legged stool--is crooked and that there is not enough money or resources. I would ask whether or not you have approached your cabinet colleagues for national funding? This would not come out of your budget; because this is a national mandate in terms of emergency environmental remediation, this in fact should be funded to some extent outside your budget so your military requirements don't have to compete against the consequential environmental requirements.

    Mr. John McCallum: I think that's a good point. You could say that one of the legs of the stool is too short or that the triangle isn't the right shape. However you wish to put it, there's always the need for more money, I agree.

    My answer is similar to the other one, that on the one hand part of it is our own responsibility for allocating funds within our own allocation, and we have increased the share to environment, as I said earlier. But we certainly are onside with the government-wide efforts that are ongoing at Treasury Board.

    Has Treasury Board fixed the amount of money yet?

    Ms. Karen Ellis: Not quite, but we're working on getting our share.

    Mr. John McCallum: As I said before, we're definitely working on getting our share, but we don't know at this moment what it will be a share of, what the total allocation will be.

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: It was announced in the budget. I believe it was $75 million this year for Treasury Board to allocate.

    Mr. John McCallum: I would agree with you, Mr. Szabo, that this is conceptually a very good approach rather than calling upon the defence department to make the environmental judgment as to how important environment is relative to training and other military capabilities. In a way, it's a bit of a conflict of interest; it's not necessarily the appropriate place for that decision to be made.

    I do think government-wide programs we can tap into are in principle a good idea, and I know we have moved in that direction. Certainly, more could be done, one could argue, but we are moving in that direction.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Monsieur Savoy, s'il vous plaît, cinq minutes.

    Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Merci, monsieur le président. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming.

    Looking outside our borders, we see we have had a lot of activity and commitments in places like the Golan Heights previously and now Somalia and Bosnia. In looking at our liability in terms of the environment in those locations internationally, number one, what dictates the process in our meeting those commitments? Is it international? Is it something we do internally? Do we apply the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to those? How do we go about assessment remediation in those situations?

    Mr. John McCallum: That's a very interesting question. I must confess, my briefings had focused on Canada.

    Ms. Stones, do you have an answer to that question?

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a procedure in place for when we deploy. It's for both the protection of the environment as well as the protection of the soldiers we send overseas. We assess the sites where we are going to deploy, we evaluate if there are any environmental factors that need to be built into the planning for the deployment, we provide the soldiers who are deployed with the appropriate information and training, and we do follow-up after the deployed operation comes home.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Andy Savoy: Are you telling me you follow the MAPS process in actually looking at our international commitments?

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: The MAPS process is one particularly for our training areas. The overseas one follows the same basic idea but rather than exercise in deployed operations, we are actually going into situations where it's not a training area as such; it's an actual live experience. We do work after we are finished to see if we've had any impact from those activities and to see what we might need to do.

    Mr. Andy Savoy: On another matter, I consider it very innovative and quite admirable that we are looking at...your fish story for example. I would like to also point out the case of the Canadian Forces base in Suffield, Alberta, where we've set aside 485 square kilometres and are proposing to make it a national wildlife area.

    Internationally, looking at comparisons with our colleagues--I'm citing NATO, for example--are you aware if other nations are taking these innovative and aggressive approaches in terms of the environment, or is Canada really above the crowd in this?

    Mr. John McCallum: Just to complete my fish story, I'll mention that not only did they have this fake bridge instead of running through the river, but immediately after the exercise all the soldiers were ordered to retrace their steps and do a full sweep to clean up any damage that might have been done to the environment. I don't know if other militaries do that. I would defer again to officials as to where we stand relative to other countries, but it certainly struck me as not in conformity with the traditional idea of how armies behave. It's definitely a 2003 mode of behaviour, not a 1983 mode of behaviour. As to whether other countries do it....

    The Chair: Ms. Ellis.

    Ms. Karen Ellis: I would just know from how other militaries train on Canadian sites. We have agreements with them for cleanups, so when they come here for training, they follow our practices of cleanup and stewardship of the environment.

    I'll ask Ms. Stones to address anything about comparisons internationally.

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: We're working with our NATO colleagues on military and environmental issues. There is a NATO policy document that is available, and we can make that available to the committee if you so wish.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

    Madam Gallant, you have five minutes.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Through you to the witness, first of all, I want to describe the leak at Dwyer Hill my colleagues were talking about previously. When the anti-terrorist team initially took over the installation, which was intended to be a stable, there was a leak in the tank, and for decades this leaked. It was only by accident through a municipal employee the oil leak was discovered.

    Now, what the defence department did in response was go to the neighbouring properties and dig a huge trench using an excavator, which completely bisected the adjacent properties. When they did so, it was done on such an angle that instead of the oil that had seeped into adjacent properties flowing back to the source, it flowed on into Heron Lake, which feeds different residential communities and which is also part of the Rideau Valley watershed. This means that the people of Ottawa are susceptible to this contamination as well.

    We know that the real reason the government refuses to do anything but expropriate this property is to keep a cover-up on that damaged environment issue.

    Now, another environmental disaster legacy arises out of the use of PCBs in the transformers and from lead paint and asbestos in the former DEW Line installations. A number of years ago, when the DEW Line installations became obsolete, they were put up for sale. In Ontario the government sold these but they did not sell to the highest bidder, they sold mostly to one bidder. He had promised to put up residential complexes and it was supposed to be very beneficial for these communities, which are very rural and remote.

    When it all came to pass, the owner simply took anything of value and left the rest to the municipalities. He hasn't paid taxes in a number of years. The municipalities contend that the Departments of National Defence and Public Works did not perform due diligence when selling these properties.

    The end result is that through the non-payment of municipal taxes, these municipalities have inherited both the safety liability as well as the astronomical cost to clean this up. There is lead paint in the buildings, so they can't even bulldoze them. They should be removed because kids are using them to do drugs and you fall through the floors. There is the issue of PCB transformer barrels as well as the use of PCBs to stretch the paint, and there's the asbestos as well.

    These places are so far away from facilities that can correctly dispose of these contaminants that the municipalities just can't afford to do so. They don't have the commercial tax base to be able to afford to, and it's just left entirely on their shoulders.

    So my question to the minister is, what steps will he take to ensure the properties are cleaned up and the cost of cleanup does not fall on the shoulders of the municipalities and the very low-income taxpayers in those municipalities?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. John McCallum: On the first point, I don't accept the conclusions about expropriation, etc. Neither do I have all the information to respond to your very detailed account, but we will provide that for you in the future.

    On your second point, you said this is about the DEW Line, but what you said doesn't sound like the DEW Line at all. I think what you're talking about is something called the Mid-Canada Line, for which the Ontario government has the lead. I don't think that's a question about the DEW Line; it seems to be a question about something for which the Province of Ontario has the lead. I'm at a little bit of a loss, Mr. Chairman, as to how to answer.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: If I may clarify, Mr. Chair, it is the Pinetree Line, which was part of the whole DEW Line installation. Another installation was in Clinton, Ontario, and it is very much under federal jurisdiction, not provincial.

    Mr. John McCallum: It doesn't sound like the DEW Line at all to me, but I will defer to one of my officials to see if they can decipher the question enough to give an answer.

    Mrs. Ginger Stones: There were a number of radar chains as part of the defence of North America. The one in the high Arctic was the one we commonly refer to as the Distant Early Warning Line. The next one down was the Mid-Canada Line, and then there was the Pinetree Line. The Mid-Canada Line was disposed of in the sixties--again, I apologize, but my memory may not be sufficient--and the Pinetree Line was decommissioned in the eighties. For the DEW Line we are currently doing the cleanup of those sites that have been decommissioned; that cleanup is underway.

    Specifically as to the Pinetree Line, each site was evaluated and sold if possible at the time to interested parties. If there is a particular site you have concerns about, I would be happy to investigate and provide you with the information as to how the sale was constituted.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Gallant.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, and I know the committee does, having the minister before us today, and I appreciate the degree of concern that has been expressed with respect to sites that presently require remediation. But I think the committee is struck with the huge difference between the liability, which is $769 million, and the funding that is available for beginning a program to deal with this liability.

    We just finished going through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where a proponent comes in and has a responsibility or makes an application to remediate a site. They provide a remediation action plan, there's public involvement, and there's a relatively public kind of process.

    Mr. Bigras has indicated an example where there's a matter of critical importance, where it appears the department is scrambling--if you'll pardon the use of that word--to muster its resources.

    My question is designed to get a handle on the culture of the ministry in the sense of, first, how could we provide more financial resources? That's critical, upgrading some of these where public health is very seriously affected. Second, in the documentation of sites, when could we have an inventory of sites and a risk analysis done on each of them so if funding was available, this would be the order of priorities and we could see some progress being made and a report coming back periodically in terms of what that progress was all about?

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  (1200)  

    Mr. John McCallum: You know, I was an economist in my former life, and I tend to judge things as much by outcomes and results as by words. In terms of our own internal actions in the department and the culture and the priorities, the fact is that we are currently spending $100 million a year. I'd like to try to find out the exact number, but I know it was a much smaller number, about $40 million a year, five years ago. So notwithstanding the pressures on our resources, this has been a very substantial increase in our financial commitment to the environment over the last five years.

    The second point I would make is, I can see the committee on both sides of the table is quite interested in the recommendation regarding the ranking of the sites. I've taken note of that message today and will discuss with my colleagues later as to whether we could expedite that and possibly come to conclusions and results faster than we otherwise might have.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I just have a short supplementary. Would it be possible to have a breakdown on that $100 million, just in terms of what it's actually being applied to? I think the committee would be interested in seeing that, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Karen Ellis: Certainly, we can provide that now if you would like.

    Mr. John McCallum: By the way, I should clarify one other point about the $100 million. This is only for direct line projects, like if we retrofit buildings.

    Ms. Karen Ellis: The energy performance contracts are different. There are all kinds of other different activities, like the contracts that go on in addition to the $100 million.

    Mr. John McCallum: So what I'm saying is, the $100 million is what you might call pure environmental projects, and there are many projects like the retrofitting of buildings that have environmental implications but also implications for other things. Those are not included, so I think that's a pretty clean number, and it understates the full amount of the effort on the environmental front. But we can give you the breakdown of the $100 million.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Just as a clarification, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee would be interested in getting a feel for the major kinds of projects so we are comfortable with the kinds of initiatives they're taking, not line by line but just the sort of small “administrivia”.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Minister, we are so impressed with your answers that we would love to have you again. Perhaps in the fall we'll see what progress has been made on current items.

    Mr. John McCallum: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I don't want to use valuable time and I know that Mr. Lunn wants to be recognized.

    Mr. Lunn, please.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I just have one short question as I know the minister has to go.

    As we discussed prior to your coming to the committee, Mr. Minister, we had a very serious incident, as you are aware, on the west coast last week. We had a U.S. military ship doing some brand new sonar testing that had an impact on the marine life, specifically the orcas out there, provoking very erratic behaviour. I understand it was off Canada's west coast, and what we've been told is that both the Canadian and U.S. militaries are investigating this, looking into it to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It was a very serious matter.

    My question is, when specifically can we expect the results of this investigation and this report, and will it be made available to this committee?

  (1205)  

    Mr. John McCallum: Yes, my understanding, Mr. Lunn, through the chair, is that this is an entirely U.S. matter and it's a U.S. investigation. I'm told that coming into Canadian waters--

    Mr. Gary Lunn: No, I understand it was a U.S. ship, but we were specifically told that the Canadian military is also looking into this matter. And to ensure that whatever precautions need to be taken--because it's something that's new--

    Mr. John McCallum: I'll defer to Ms. Ellis

    Mr. Gary Lunn: It had a very serious impact on the marine life on the west coast. Probably a better question is, are we looking into it, and if so, when can we expect some results?

    Ms. Karen Ellis: Mr. Chair, I can't give any specific details on the timing of when such a report would come out, but we will look into that. I can say to the committee that we do have a protocol for Canadian waters when it comes to protecting marine life from things such as sonar, and when U.S. or other ships are in our water, they do follow that protocol.

    But we will get back to you on this specific question. I'm sorry I don't have more information on it right now, but we will certainly look into it and get back with a response.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: The minister has to leave, I understand, but Mr. Bigras has a very short question, if the minister wouldn't mind, and then we will conclude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have a question concerning lac Saint-Pierre. Apparently over the past 50 years, over 3,000 shells have been fired in this body of water. Moreover, the military apparently has 8,000 unexploded shells to contend with.

    My question is simple: what plans do you have for this ammunition and what kind of timeframe are we talking about? We've heard that tests have already been done on shells recovered from the Jacques-Cartier River. What are your plans for decontaminating lac Saint-Pierre and dealing with the problems of unexploded ammunition?

    Mr. John McCallum: To answer that question, I would say three things. Firstly, we stopped firing ammunition into the lake in January 2000. That's doesn't entirely resolve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

    Secondly, we regularly do sweeps of the shoreline.

    And thirdly, the fundamental question is whether, in the long term, it will be possible for us to destroy or recover the shells already in the lake. We've been told that this type of recovery operation could pose a danger to the lake. We've yet to find a technical solution to this problem. The lake environment is very sensitive and this solution could do more harm than anything else to the environment. To be honest, we don't have a long-term solution to this problem right now. However, we're continuing to work on one.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    It's time for us to wrap it up.

[English]

    Monsieur le ministre, I'm very impressed by the substance you and the members of the committee were able to cover today. We know you'll give these items personal attention, and we appreciate it very much.

    We'll see you in the fall.

    Mr. John McCallum: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Could I ask the members for a moment of attention to the motion prepared, which has been circulated. It is a request on the part of your chair for permission to travel and for permission to be allocated a certain amount of funds in order to cover this travel. The explanation is given in the course of the motion.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I would be prepared to move adoption or approval of the budget for travel as proposed and circulated.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The next meeting is on the implementation of Kyoto and is scheduled for June 12 with Mr. Rock, the Minister of Industry, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources. We will pursue the matter with Mister Manley.

    Thank you.

    Meeting adjourned.