ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

0905

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

Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

Mr. Peter Kasurak (Principal, Office of the Auditor General )

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

0915

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CA)

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

0920

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

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

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

0925

Mr. Joe Comartin

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

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Raymond Kunce (Audit Project Leader, Office of the Auditor General )

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

0930

The Chair

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume (Director, Environmental Protection, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mrs. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

0935

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

0940

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Peter Kasurak

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

0945

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

0950

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Peter Kasurak

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

0955

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Joe Comartin

1000

Ms. Ginger Stones

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

1005

Ms. Ginger Stones

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Brent DiBartolo

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1010

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 074

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Chapter 12 is before us today. The committee has a quorum, and we welcome the officials from the Auditor General's office and from the Department of National Defence.

Mr. McRoberts, I understand you would like to go ahead. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you for inviting us to discuss the follow-up of our 1999 audit of the way National Defence managed risk to employees and the environment caused by hazardous materials. This follow-up appeared in chapter 12 of our report tabled last December. I am here today with Mr. Peter Kasurak, the principal responsible for the audit, and Mr. Raymond Kunce, the environmental audit specialist who did much of the work.

In 1999 we examined how National Defence managed hazardous materials such as flammable substances, corrosive products, and ammunition. The department used over 6,000 hazardous products and estimated that at least a quarter of its 80,700 full-time employees came into frequent contact with hazardous materials. Although departmental policies, plans, and procedures at the national level indicated an awareness of the legal framework and best practices for hazardous materials management, implementation at the base and unit levels was inconsistent. We found shortcomings in compliance with laws and regulations, in application of audit protocols and methodologies, and in application of compliance management systems aimed at promoting continual improvement.

When our audit was tabled in 1999, the department responded positively to our recommendations and indicated that it would take action to address the concerns raised in our audit. We have distributed to the committee members a copy of the recommendations contained in the December 1999 report.

[Translation]

We conducted a follow-up of this audit last year. We found that the Department had developed action plans to address our recommendations and had made some progress. However, it had carried out few recommendations fully and had revised and extended many of the completion dates for its action plans.

Since that time there has been additional slippage. Also, we have several concerns about the Department's response to our follow-up.

I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the Department's action on three main issues in our audit: improving safety for employees who handle hazardous material; preventing damage to the environment from the use of hazardous materials; and putting in place a management system that supports continuous improvement in employee and environmental protection.

[English]

The 1999 audit found that the workplace hazardous materials information system, WHMIS, was not fully in place in the ten bases and wings we audited. This national system identifies hazardous materials through labels and signs, makes safety data available in the workplace, and ensures that workers receive appropriate training. We found continuing problems with labelling, material safety data sheets were missing, and 45% of staff handling hazardous materials lacked appropriate training.

The 2001 follow-up found that the department had developed a web-based system that contains current material safety data sheets and also provides reference information. However, the department is determining requirements and continuing to develop the system. The department will offer better training by this July. The committee may wish to ask the department about progress in training staff who need it and any change in the proportion of trained staff from the 42% we found in our 1999 audit.

The ten bases we audited did not periodically monitor their air or liquid effluent emissions for all hazardous material contaminants on which limits were set by federal laws or guidelines. While the federal government is not bound by provincial or municipal laws, the department's policy was that it would follow these standards “where applicable”. What this meant, however, had never been defined. In 2001 we reported that the department had committed itself to issuing national guidance on liquid effluent monitoring, developing and carrying out an effluent monitoring plan for storm sewers, and periodically testing discharges to municipal sewers. Monitoring at some locations was funded through a corporate account that was due to run out this year. This situation could put this program at risk.

The department does not expect to have a national air emissions strategy until March 2003. It has received a legal opinion on defining when it should apply provincial and municipal regulations and standards. However, the department does not expect to issue its own policy until sometime this year.

The audit found many gaps in compliance with existing regulations for the management of hazardous materials. We believe compliance monitoring is an essential part of a continuous feedback and improvement system. Bases should have objectives for compliance and should know how well they are doing. They should monitor shortfalls and try to improve. The department has taken some steps in this regard, but progress is slow. Goals and objectives against which to monitor at all bases and wings are not expected to be in place and reviewed before March 31, 2004. The department's audit and inspection plan is not fully in place. The department intends to rely on reviewing capacity to meet commitments. It is unclear how this will show the actual level of compliance. In short, it will have taken at least five years after the audit to run a system supporting continuous improvement.

Our follow-up and tracking shows that environmental specialists in the department have been steadily, if not quickly, building the necessary tools to better manage hazardous materials. It would be very useful to have better information on the achieved results in complying with workplace standards. The committee may wish to ask the department these questions. What is the rate of progress? How will the armed services replace central funding? How will the department complete a management system to support continuous improvement?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McRoberts.

Mr. DiBartolo.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a prepared statement, but I would like to introduce my colleagues Ms. Ginger Stones, who is director general of environment, and Mr. Holmer Berthiaume, director of environmental protection.

I would simply note, Mr. Chairman, that the department found the report very useful in identifying some of the shortfalls. We accepted all the recommendations, and have developed a fairly detailed action plan. We will acknowledge that full implementation has taken some time, but I would point out that we intentionally developed a strategy whereby, instead of trying to address just the hazardous materials issue as separate initiatives, we, as the follow-up report noted, have been focusing on the sustainable development strategy, which we believe is a much more holistic approach to environmental protection and will provide longer-term benefits with the broader range of environmental protection initiatives. We are addressing the hazardous materials issues through that.

I would also note that in the last two reports of the Commissioner of Environment on sustainable development practices in government the Department of National Defence was cited as being a leader in that regard. We take comfort from the fact that progress has been recognized in those areas.

The Chair: Do you have a written statement to circulate?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: No. As I said, I didn't come with a prepared statement .

The Chair: I realize that, but why didn't you come with a prepared statement?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I was under the impression that we had the option, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I certainly did not give this option. Considering the importance of your department and the importance of the issue, it would be a valuable document.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: If would like the department to prepare a response to the Auditor General's follow-up and submit it to the committee, I can do that

The Chair: Yes, that would be very helpful. I think it would also be helpful to the Auditor General. Mr. McRoberts, would you agree?

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: Perhaps I could ask my colleague Mr. Kasurak to respond.

Mr. Peter Kasurak (Principal, Office of the Auditor General ): We conduct routine follow-up with the department. Shortly before the committee called us to this hearing, we received this year's response from the department. I think it would be most useful if the department could provide some additional information accounting for their progress, especially a little more results information on the number...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: [Editor's Note:Technical difficulty]

The Chair: [Technical difficulty--Editor]

It would be useful to have something on paper.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: We can send a detailed follow-up, Mr. Chairman, to this committee and to the Auditor General.

The Chair: All right.

We'll start our first round of questions. Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to admit, I agree with the chairman. I find the response of the department quite troubling. To come unprepared, give us a two-minute statement, and use words like, well, we're taking a holistic approach, is troubling, and I'll explain why. What I get out of this is that the department just isn't putting a priority on this. I was in my previous life, back in 1989, responsible for implementing a WHMIS system in the forest industry sector. We spent a lot of time. It took us about a year to develop the labelling, the training, the data sheets, making sure they're at all the work stations, that the workers knew the hazards. Furthermore, we had to ensure that they had the proper equipment and knew how to deal with those hazardous information systems, that they had the gloves, that if there was a PCB spill, they had the suits and the boots and the appropriate equipment.

So it's not just about labels, it's not just about the data sheets, but it's to ensure that our employees in the department have the training and the equipment to deal with this, and second, that we've got an effective cleanup if we do have a chemical spill. As the Auditor General pointed out, there were some 6,000 hazardous products. The Auditor General says progress is slow. We can't expect the goals to be reached before March 31, 2004.

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

...Auditor General's report, but for the department to come and give us a two-minute response I actually find quite appalling, that this is how you are prepared to give us your responses. I find this quite a serious issue. I don't know what the ramifications are or if there have been any with some of our employees, but I do take this as a serious issue.

I don't know the specific chemicals, the hazardous materials, at DND. I can imagine some of them, but I do have some knowledge of what this is about, and it's quite a serious issue. Again, it's more than just an information system, if the next step is to ensure that we have all the equipment, the procedures necessary to protect our employees. If you have all that in place, you'll be doing a better job as stewards of our environment, because if that training is in place, when we do have a situation, it will happen much more quickly.

I don't know how I can ask questions, Mr. Chairman, when we've only got a two-minute response. I'll leave my comments on the record, if they want to respond, but I am quite appalled that the department would come completely unprepared--that is what I see. So I do look forward to their written response.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. DiBartolo.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I just want to set the record straight. When I got briefed on the procedures of the committee, I was told we had an option whether or not to prepare an opening statement. I chose not to prepare an opening statement, essentially on the assumption that it would provide more time for questions. I did not want to leave the impression with the committee or with the Auditor General that we are taking the situation lightly. In fact, we have made significant progress in a number of areas. While the entire broader environmental management system won't be completed till 2004, I don't want to leave the impression that nothing will be completed until 2004.

The Auditor General, in the report, did note that we made significant improvement in regard to the information management and the training. The original report noted that we had the proper policies and procedures in place at the national level. The issue was one of compliance and due diligence in our bases and wings.

I would suggest that if you're familiar with an organization like the Department of National Defence, the most effective way of ensuring that policies and procedures get the proper attention is if there's a clear instruction from the chain of command. I would note that the group chiefs, the heads of the army, navy, and air force, have been engaged. We've engaged them as a result of the Auditor General's report and as a result of a corporate environmental program we're initiating. They have sent instructions out to their organizations that they expect an increased focus on not only handling of hazardous materials, but the broader environmental agenda.

So I certainly don't want to leave the committee with the impression that we're either taking this situation lightly or not acting on it at all. The broad environmental management system, which is not a new system, but really an integration of existing systems to ensure that we have a comprehensive view from the senior levels right down through to the bases of what's going on, will not be completed until 2004, but many of the elements are in fact there.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Gary Lunn: Again, this goes back further than before 1999. Workplace hazardous materials information systems were widely known in 1990, 12 years ago. This is not two or three years, this is 12 years old. How is it possible that 45% of the employees do not have proper training today? I do find that incredibly disturbing, and I do think we're putting some of these people at risk, because they need that training. How do you deal with these chemicals? I think due diligence is on you and the people involved in the environmental department to go to the chain of command, as opposed to relying on them, as opposed to waiting for orders. I was specifically involved in a workplace hazardous materials information system, and it's a very complex, detailed system, but this should have been done 10 years ago. When the Auditor General says 45% of the people don't have the adequate training today, that's an appalling number.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: That was the number reported in 1999. I think this year's report acknowledges that we've made progress on training. I don't have specific numbers, but a response to the Auditor General's follow-up will include detailed numbers.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll defer to my colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. DiBartolo, have you seen the brief outline we got from Mr. McRoberts?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I must say, some of the issues he raised that go beyond the follow-up report are a surprise to me.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can we just deal with a couple of the questions?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: Certainly.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I, like Mr. Lunn, am at some disadvantage, I suppose, since we haven't seen any response at all in writing.

It seems that historically at least, the bulk of the problem has been lack of resources, I assume both with personnel and with finances, and he has indicated this morning that the funding either has run out or is about to run out. He's asking where the resources are going to come from and whether they have been put in place.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: A corporate environmental program was established at the national level 10 years ago that was intended to address major environmental issues. Funding was scheduled to decline this fiscal year, and it was sunsetted next fiscal year. We recognized, given the environmental issues the department faces, that this approach was unsustainable. We did, in fact, develop a proposal for our continued corporate environmental program, with additional funding to be provided in the out years. That was taken to our defence management committee. It was approved, and I've subsequently secured funding for it. So the corporate environmental program will be extended.

We have, I would note, changed the focus of the corporate environmental program so that it will deal with the broader, larger environmental issues, recognizing that ongoing operational requirements have to take into consideration environmental implications. The heads of the army, navy, and air force and my other ADM colleagues have been instructed to ensure that in their future business plans they fully reflect the requirements for environmental protection in their resource requests.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you tell us what the level of funding was in 2000-2001 and what it's proposed to be in 2002?

Ms. Ginger Stones (Director General, Environment, Department of National Defence): I'm going from memory here, but I believe it was about $25 million for the corporate environmental program, and on top of that, we set aside separate funding for a major cleanup of the DEW line, and that averaged between $10 million and $20 million. So it's between $30 million and $40 million overall spent through designated programs. The commands and the bases have also, in many cases, spent separate money that they've identified out of their own budgets on environment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And for this year?

Ms. Ginger Stones: Again from memory, there's $15 million for the corporate environmental program, which is the one that covers all the targets in the sustainable development strategy, and separate funding for contaminated sites and the DEW line cleanup.

Mr. Joe Comartin: As a bit of an aside, since you've raised the DEW line cleanup, is that being contracted out or is it being conducted by regular forces?

Ms. Ginger Stones: It's contracted out. We go competitive on our contracts for the cleanup of the DEW line.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you have a forecast on how long that's going to take?

Ms. Ginger Stones: We're going sequentially across the DEW line, so we'll be doing one or two sites a year, and the final cleanup is expected to finish about 2012. And as we finish each site, we have a commitment to do 25 years of ongoing monitoring on the landfills that have been stabilized and left in place.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To come back to the funding, from last year to this year it's dropped by 40%, if my figures are right. Is that what you asked for, and will it do the job?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: That's what we requested, based on input we got from the various commands, and it's projected to increase to about $20 million a year thereafter, recognizing that a number of the initiatives that historically were funded from the corporate environmental program, which I described as ongoing environmental requirements, are to be funded separately from within the base funding levels for the various environments.

Mr. Joe Comartin: With the training and dealing with the issue of hazardous waste, both what we've accumulated historically and what we'll have to continue to deal with, have you broken out, as part of that budget, a specific line item for that area, or is it just part of the whole sustainable development budget?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: It's just part of the broader initiative. I would expect that each of the commands would have a separate line item on training to reflect their specific needs.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To Mr. McRoberts or Mr. Kasurak, are those funding dollars adequate, from your perspective? Are you able to comment on that?

Mr. Raymond Kunce (Audit Project Leader, Office of the Auditor General ): If they're applied in the right direction, they will contribute significantly to improved performance.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have a couple of questions too, if other people around the table will allow it. Mr. DiBartolo, would you indicate to us the components of the air emissions strategy. What do you intend to control, what do you intend to reduce? Are you referring to greenhouse gas emissions or to conventional pollutants?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: We're looking at both. We're developing national protocols for conventional pollutants, but we also have a program focused at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have significantly reduced our emissions already over the last number of years, and are identifying means of reducing energy consumption as a primary approach. We've successfully entered into energy contracts whereby heating sources at individual bases have been upgraded, and the savings realized through energy efficiency have paid for the costs of the upgrade over a five- to eight-year period. We think there is significant potential to apply that approach broadly on a national basis and not only achieve longer-term savings, but significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Have you established percentages for greenhouse gas emissions, and if so, what is your base year and what is your target year?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume (Director, Environmental Protection, Department of National Defence): The federal “house in order” initiative has established 1990 as the base year, and the federal government is looking at a 31% reduction by the year 2010. The exercise I guess began in earnest in 1998, when we established the baseline data. The federal government to date has achieved a 19% reduction, which leaves departments the requirement to achieve another 11% from 1998 to 2010.

The Chair: Thirty-one per cent is pretty ambitious. Is this being achieved by reduction in equipment and material and activities, or is it being achieved by a reduction in energy consumption per se? How is it being achieved?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I would say both, Mr. Chairman. Some of the reductions against our baseline are the result of things like base closures, where we've actually shut down facilities and obviously stopped using the energy. But as for reductions for ongoing operations, our focus is on achieving the emission reductions through energy consumption reductions.

The Chair: This committee travelled north of 60 in 1995 for the purpose of preparing a report on CEPA, and at that time we visited Campbell River and Iqaluit, where you did have two fairly extensive hazardous waste sites. When you appeared before the committee subsequently, in the late nineties, you indicated, if I remember correctly, your intent to manage those two sites better. Do you have any information as to what is happening both in Iqaluit and in Campbell River? These are DEW line sites.

Ms. Ginger Stones: Iqaluit would be, I think, a forward-operating location, but I'm not sure, and Campbell River I'll have to get you information on. I can talk about the other DEW line cleanups at the 21 sites, if the committee is interested, to give you a progress report on that, but on those two specific sites I'd have to get you information and come back. Would you like a short update on where we are on the DEW line cleanup?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Ginger Stones: There are 21 sites we are managing and have been phased out. Some of them exist on current North Warning System sites, so there are facilities that will be decommissioned and remaining facilities that will stay on many of the sites. For some of the sites we have no purpose any longer, and they will be completely decommissioned.

The Chair: By when?

Ms. Ginger Stones: We're due to complete in 2012. That's the latest date.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: What is the implication when you use the term decommissioned? What does it mean exactly?

Ms. Ginger Stones: We are taking down all the buildings that are no longer required for the North Warning System. We are checking each of the landfills--more rightly, some of them are just dumps--and we are re-engineering them. We are taking out any hazardous materials, we are bringing the hazardous materials south. The re-engineered landfills are stabilized, and we set up a monitoring system, so that we can continue to monitor each of the landfills that stay there for 25 years afterwards. We clean up any spills we've identified that are above criteria. The materials rated as hazardous are, again, brought south. Other things that can be left in place are put into the landfills as well. We take down all the buildings, we clean up the spills, we remove any other infrastructure, and we take out all the hazardous materials. Basically, we regrade the site and attempt to make it similar to what it was before the DEW line was built.

The Chair: Would the substances you are taking south include PCBs? What are the substances?

Ms. Ginger Stones: There might be other substances, like lead or mercury, found in the soils that are above the criteria. We have hydrocarbon spills that we are addressing, but we usually try to address them in situ. We'll do land farming or something of that nature to remedy the soils in place, then we return the soil. We either put it into a landfill or we return it to the site.

The Chair: Could you explain why the decommissioning cannot be completed sooner than 2012?

Ms. Ginger Stones: We've entered into agreements with the land claims parties in the north, the Inuvialuit in the western Arctic and NTI in the eastern Arctic. We've agreed to the cleanup criteria and the schedule, because there is a component of assisting in training of local people to participate in the cleanup. This schedule we've agreed to is one that allows for a significant level of participation in the employment by local people.

The Chair: Yes, we agree there, but another 10 years is a long time.

Ms. Ginger Stones: We go into each of the sites before we initiate the cleanup and do a delineation. So the cleanup for a specific site, from the time we do our initial delineation to the time we complete it, can take as long as four years. It's usually two to three years for the actual cleanup, and the year before that we go in for delineation. So each one of the sites does take four to five years.

The Chair: You certainly cannot be accused of rushing into the cleanup process, considering that the issue has been around for some time.

We have now Madam Kraft-Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering what information the department has gathered on pesticide use with relation to your activities, properties, and that sort of thing.

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: Pesticides have been a target in our sustainable development strategy. The first strategy in 1997 had a reduction target from 1993 as a base year. There was a requirement to report usage as part of a Treasury Board directive. At the same time, the department has moved into developing integrated pest management plans, which are instrumental in achieving the reduction we are looking for. This year an environmental directive went out, and we are now moving in a direction similar to some of the municipalities, where in highly sensitive areas, schoolyards, playgrounds, that sort of area, there's an immediate cessation in the use of pesticides. Next year that will extend to all the other areas that fall under our jurisdiction.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Would the armed services bases where military families are living be included under that?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When you say you are looking at a reduction from your 1993 base year, what kind of reduction are you looking at? Are there particular kinds of pesticides, cosmetic versus other types of pesticides, that are targeted? Currently, pesticide use is not under the WHMIS process when it's in an industrial setting, so I'm wondering how information is gathered, how up to date your information is.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: Mr. Berthiaume noted that our original sustainable development strategy had a pesticide reduction as an objective. That has since been overtaken by our new approach. We're actually looking at total elimination of pesticides. The measurement will be a non-issue if we totally stop using.

¿ (0940)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is that all uses of pesticides?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: No, cosmetic lawn pesticides.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about the other types of pesticides?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: I guess the only document I didn't bring was the 1997 one. I think it was a 50% reduction from 1993 base levels, but I'll have to confirm that number for you. There was a target in our previous sustainable development strategy. Now we're taking it one step further when it comes to the cosmetic lawn use.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're doing a continuous inventory of pesticide use in all your facilities and properties?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: It is under the Treasury Board directive. It is a requirement to maintain records of the types and quantity of pesticides that are applied.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: With application of pesticides, what kind of training programs are available to your workers and personnel?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: You must be a trained applicator and have certification by a provincial authority to apply pesticides on defence property.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That includes the cosmetic use of pesticides?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: Your ordinary homeowner may do stuff any one of us can do. The training is minimal there. Anybody we engage to apply pesticides must have the certification.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This issue hasn't come up on some of the tours we've done up north with this committee. Is there pesticide use in some of the DEW line sites up north?

Ms. Ginger Stones: I'd have to check some of the different substances that have been found. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some kind of insecticide had been used at some times for mosquitoes or flies. That's on the old DEW line sites. We'll also check and confirm with you what might still be in use on the current North Warning System sites.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Some of this would be inside the facility, some outside, as you mentioned for mosquitoes and that sort of thing. It would be interesting to know if any research has been done with regard to the breakdown of the substances in the north, because the cold inhibits the breakdown of some of these substances.

Ms. Ginger Stones: When we go in to do a cleanup, we do a complete delineation. We start out with a historical background check to see if people who have worked up there can tell us the kinds of materials that were in use at the sites. We also do a complete scan and sampling. We would pick up elevated levels of any materials that are there. We will get back to you with a complete list of the materials and any pesticides that have been identified in the scan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Particularly pesticides like DDT that have been banned for use in Canada since the early eighties. I don't know why it would be used in the north. It would be interesting to note if there are any substances like that up there.

I wonder if anyone from the Auditor General's office would like to comment on the department's handling and control of pesticides.

Mr. Peter Kasurak: We haven't looked into that as part of our audit work, so we can't comment on it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Second round, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You may be able to comment now, and if you can't, I understand, but I would ask that in the written submission you send to the chair of the committee you address a few of these issues.

One of the biggest things I'm getting a sense of is that there are no goals or targets--there don't appear to be anyhow--to address the recommendations by the Auditor General and follow up for compliance. Do you have specific goals, to go back to the specific issue with hazardous materials, for when you want to see the materials safety data sheets? When do you want to see the training and full compliance? Are you right now in the process of training the people who are going to train the staff in the field?

One issue that's not addressed and again I recall struggling with is probably the most difficult component, but yet the most important, and it's not talked a lot about in here, ensuring that the employees have the tools and the equipment to do the job. It's one thing to give them the training, to have the material safety data sheets in the workplace, but sometimes you need to wear protective clothing. There are a number of things that are required. If you can't answer those questions now, I would like you to include them in the follow-up, as well as addressing the points the Auditor General has raised.

My last question is, when can the environment committee expect your response to these questions?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: As to the Auditor General's 1990 report, we do have a very detailed action plan that has anticipated target dates. The current version I have also has information on the current status. Unfortunately, the dated copy I have is not a very good copy, and it's in one language only, but I'd be more than prepared to undertake to have it translated and provided to the committee.

As to the equipment, we'll ensure that we include that information in the follow-up.

Holmer.

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: One thing I'd like to mention is that the observation of the Office of the Auditor General was one of a lack of consistency in standardization. There is a lot of work happening at our bases and wings. We do have environmental officers, we do have hazardous materials officers.

There is a “train the trainer” course that has been issued. We're in the process of reissuing four separate packages for training. This is through our safety people. The whole awareness training is happening at the base level. The record-keeping might be a problem at times, but there is an effort being made by all the supervisors to make sure their staff are aware of the hazards associated with the substances they're using in the workplace, including making sure they have the appropriate protective equipment. We're not aware of any specific examples of people not being provided with protective equipment. I'm not sure if the OAG picked that up in their audit.

All that is to say is that there is stuff happening. It's just that the effort right now is at the national level to try to come up with a standardized and common approach.

People are responsible for making sure the products they bring to the workplace are accompanied by an MSDS. What we're trying to do now is come up with a centralized database to keep the MSDSs current. That is a challenge at the base level, because they tend to be using 5,000 to 6,000 products. Staggered expiration dates make it a challenge to stay on top of that. So we're hoping the tool we're developing right now, which will be available later this year, will help them in the management of MSDSs. It will also, in a general sense, address inventory information, so they will have a list of the substances that are used in the workplace, with minimum and maximum amounts, so that for emergency response, that information is available.

There is spill response training offered to all the people in the workplace. Then we have, in most cases, our fire department, a first response capability.

So there is quite a bit happening at the base level. It's just trying to bring everybody to that same, common ground that we're about right now. That, unfortunately, is taking a bit of time.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: As to the final question, I think we can do a detailed follow-up to the Auditor General's report and get this fairly extensive action plan translated and to this committee. I would hope to do that within two weeks, if that's acceptable.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Kasurak wanted to respond to the issue of whether there have been incidents where personnel were not properly equipped and exposed.

Mr. Peter Kasurak: Our original audit did not focus on this, but when we did identify instances where respiratory protection programs for spray booths weren't fully implemented, where there wasn't proper ventilation, there wasn't proper equipment, or employees weren't using the equipment correctly. We reported this, but we don't have a statistical summary of it.

The other thing I'd like to comment on in regard to the department's action plan is that it is, in general, very extensive, but the one key element we would like to see additional goals set for is implementation of a compliance program and reporting in the department's statistics and goals the level of compliance with standards, especially WHMIS standards. That's an element we believe could be improved on in the plan, but the plan is quite extensive, and in general, is pointed in the right direction.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't think that should come out of my time, Mr. Chair, although I did want the information. Thank you, Mr. Kasurak.

Mr. DiBartolo, I think you got at this a bit, and your officials have as well, but can I have a general response, and then in writing when you prepare your report, as to how the management system will be there to sustain whatever improvements you've been able to make?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I think it's been touched on in my earlier comments, and certainly Mr. Berthiaume's. We are trying to ensure that we have an integrated environmental management system that links all the current systems at the base level through to the broader national policy one. That's the system we are working to complete by 2004. If you'd like more details on the status, I think the response in regard to the action plan will give you them.

Mr. Joe Comartin: At this point I don't mean for you to give up your life on this one, but you're pretty well assuring us that by 2004 the system's going to be in place?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I'm confident that 2004 is an achievable date. As I noted, we have the high-level environmental management system developed. It's a matter of rolling it down to the bases and wings and getting into more detail as it progresses through the chain of command. I would note that the Commissioner of the Environment was very positive about the progress we had made on the MS in his last report.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You're going to come back in 2004 for that committee meeting and tell us you've made the goal.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: It'll be close to my retirement date, but somebody will return.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We'll bring you out of retirement.

I want to go back to hazardous waste. I'm new to the committee, I've only been here for a year and a half. Is there any work being done, are any assessments being done, is any inventory being taken on off-shore dumping of hazardous waste?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: Yes. There was an issue raised on the east coast recently about the potential of historic dumping of hazardous materials. Mr. Kehoe has raised concerns, and we've approached him and asked for whatever information he has. We've also established internally a working group with representatives from the various commands and from our research facility, and are undertaking a historical file review to try to determine if such dumps exist, and if they do, where they are and what might be in them. Once we have that information we'll undertake a risk assessment on a site-by-site basis to determine what action is appropriate.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you doing that for the east coast only?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: No, throughout the country, east and west.

Ms. Ginger Stones: I would add that we've contacted other departments that may have an interest in this, such as Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada.

The Chair: Transport too?

Ms. Ginger Stones: I believe we've been in touch with Transport. I can give you the list of all the departments we have contacted. We will continue to involve them in the research we do, because there may be jurisdictional issues they need to deal with relative to mapping charts, sea lanes. Natural Resources Canada we were also in contact with.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you asking them to do a search of their historical files?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: They do have some information, as at DFAIT. Because of their role and responsibility with the arms convention, they do have information that has to be reported to them. So they will provide us with information. The other departments may have records that indicate something, and we will use that information to come up with our list of sites.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And you will provide us with an overview of what you've done up until this point, what's been requested?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: Sure.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is a local question for me. Is there any cleanup going on at Camp Ipperwash in southwestern Ontario at this point?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: No, we're still in the process of trying to negotiate an environmental cleanup protocol and assessment procedure. Quite frankly, the difficulty is in trying to reach agreement between the two groups, the chief and council and the occupants, that will allow us to actually enter the site and do the assessment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Has any cleanup been done historically? There used to be a dump there. Has that been cleaned?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I don't think any cleanup has been done. I know at one point we did try to send a group in to start an assessment, and unfortunately, they weren't allowed to enter the premises.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Does that extend as well to any armaments that may still be there?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I'm not aware of any armaments that may be there, but I'll check. I've certainly had no indication that there are any stored there, though the cleanup of a training area may be required.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Could you let me know what the situation is?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: With the dump?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, because we knew there were a number of shells still there. I don't know if any cleanup has been done on that.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: We haven't started the unexploded ordinance cleanup. That's part of the negotiations also.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In the 17 sites on the DEW line was any radioactive material discovered?

Ms. Ginger Stones: There are 21 sites we're working on. If there are any radioactive dials or those kinds of materials, they are removed at the time of decommissioning. We also do a scan for any radioactive materials when we do our delineation, and if we find any, we remove them and transport them south.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you know where their ultimate disposal is?

À (1000)

Ms. Ginger Stones: I'll have to find out and get back to you.

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: We dispose of the radioactive materials to the new Atomic Energy Agency, but quite frankly, they're overwhelmed, and they've asked us to keep devices for a couple of years until they have the capacity to dispose of them. But by and large, as Ms. Stone has said, we're talking about dials on equipment and that sort of thing, which are not high-risk items, and we have a method of storing them safely.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

According to the Auditor General, you had a corporate environment program, and then there is an environmental management system. So the titles explain the difference between the two. According to the Auditor General, the funding for the corporate environmental program is to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Do you intend to renew it, and if so, what will be the funding and how will it compare to the funding so far?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I touched on this earlier, Mr. Chairman. The corporate environmental program was scheduled to sunset this year. There has, since the Auditor General's follow-up, been a decision to extend the corporate environmental program to provide funding for large cleanup initiatives that are required or large environmental initiatives that are required. A portion of the historical corporate environmental program was also used to fund what I would refer to as ongoing operational requirements, environmental requirements associated with operations. The various commanders have been instructed to include those operational requirements in their long-term plans, and a separate fund has been established for the larger items. As Ms. Stone has indicated, the corporate environmental program funding last year was about $25 million. This year it's $15 million, and it's projected to increase to about $20 million dollars a year.

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: That $15 million dollars is what we call the old corporate environmental program, and then $12 million is set aside for the cleanup of major contaminated sites or those sorts of activities.

Ms. Ginger Stones: There's a one-year overlap between the ending of the old and the beginning of the new, and the DEW line is funded separately.

The Chair: So in the next fiscal year how much money can you count on?

Ms. Ginger Stones: In 2003-2004 the commands will make a business plan for their ongoing activities, and they're just doing the forecast of that now. We've given them direction as to the targets they are to meet, which are the sustainable development targets, and they've been instructed to include the funding in their business plan for that. So we don't know yet what that increment will be, but it will be built into their current business plan. The next fiscal year the corporate environmental program, under the new criteria to manage large cleanup, will be $15 million, and on top of that is the DEW line cleanup again.

The Chair: So as a total, you expect to count on what amount for the next fiscal year?

Ms. Ginger Stones: We have about $40 million for the DEW line and $15 million for the corporate environmental program. So that's $55 million, and on top of that would be whatever the commands build into their business plan.

The Chair: For 2003-2004.

To move to the environmental management system, which is expected to come into force across the department not until March 2004, according to the Auditor General, why couldn't it be March 2003? Why is it not sooner than that? It seems to be an important instrument at your disposal. Why is it so slow?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: The 2004 date is for the full rollout of the environmental management system. As I mentioned earlier, we have already established the first level of the system, and it's got positive reviews from the environment commissioner. The problem is taking it now and integrating it with the various systems throughout the department and ensuring that we have a comprehensive one. It's an issue that's so complex that it will take some time to complete.

The Chair: The Auditor General is recommending that that audit team be made up of personnel from outside the group being audited. Is that now taking place, and if so, to what extent? Have you complied fully with the Auditor General's suggestion that the auditing be done by an outsider, which seems to be a very normal practice?

À (1005)

Ms. Ginger Stones: There are different levels in our auditing protocol. The first level is when we audit from the headquarters level and we audit the army, navy, and air force and the other smaller commands. We've already instituted the first assessment of one of those elements. Our commitment is every three years to audit each of them. We did the navy this year. Concurrently with that, all the major commands audit their bases. So there's a tumble-down program, where we start at the headquarters level and do the major commands, and then the commands audit their individual bases. Often they ask us to participate in those audits at the base level. We are there to assist them as required, and in turn, we review their audit findings and report at the national level.

The Chair: Is it being implemented or is it not?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: At the national level the audits are conducted by people outside the commands, but as it tumbles down, the audits tend to be conducted by people more senior in the chain of command, who audit the smaller units.

The Chair: And you're satisfied that it is a good process?

Mr. Holmer Berthiaume: The different commands will ask other commands, so although it's not outside the department, we're getting people from the army participating in audits of the air force bases and wings, and that allows information exchange to happen at the same time.

The Chair: You say to the Auditor General that you are implementing that recommendation to a fair degree?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: I would say so, but if the Auditor General still has concerns as to whether or not broader outside participation is required, we'd be open to recommendations.

The Chair: Finally, 12.295 in the Auditor General's report deals with the efforts by your department to initiate a policy that clarifies federal, provincial, and municipal regulations and applicable standards. This final policy is apparently expected in spring 2002. Can you give us an idea of where you're at?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: We are finalizing that policy now. I think the Auditor General's concern is that the policy refer to provincial and municipal standards or requirements where applicable and have a definition of “where applicable”. We're working on that. I would say, by and large, the policy is to meet or better the local requirements, recognizing that there are some conditions where that would not be possible. I'll give you examples of what would be applicable and what wouldn't.

The Chair: Is the policy in place?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: No, it's being finalized now, and will be completed within the next two months.

The Chair: By the summer?

Mr. Brent DiBartolo: Yes.

Clearly, if we were discharging effluent into a municipal water system, we would meet all the standards of the municipality, but to the extent that the local municipal requirements require licensing, for example, it's a policy of the federal government that it will not subject itself to provincial regulations. While in our environmental management we'd meet the same sorts of standards, we wouldn't subject ourselves to licensing requirements. That's the kind of differentiation we'd be making.

The Chair: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm a bit concerned, from some of the comments already made by both you and Mr. Lunn, about information we didn't get this morning. So I suppose I'm just saying to the witnesses that we may, once we get the information from them, require them to come again to answer questions arising from that material.

The only other point I would make, Mr. Chair, is that given the circumstances, whatever information we do get back from them, I would like to be sure that either the clerk or Mr. DiBartolo sends it to Mr. McRoberts, so that they see it as well. And, Mr. McRoberts, if you have comments, obviously, the committee would be more than happy to hear from you.

À (1010)

The Chair: We want, then, to conclude our sitting today. On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials from the Auditor General and from National Defence. We would certainly be glad to hear from you about the manner in which you hope to proceed. We hope you can compress some of your deadlines, so as to give the various programs you have in mind for the future an even greater sense of urgency. I appreciate the complexity of your operations, but these issues have been with us for some time, so it is not unreasonable to expect delivery sooner rather than later. However, we will leave it to your good judgment, of course. We hope to have your report, and if necessary, we will come back a year from now to measure progress.

Thank you, Mr. McRoberts, thank you, Mr. DiBartolo.

This meeting is adjourned.