ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 30, 2003

¹

1530

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

Mr. Gordon J. Hunter (Director General, Equipment Program Service, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Denis Sanschagrin (Superintendent, Munitions Experimental Test Centre, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

Mr. Denis Sanschagrin

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Giroul (Secretary, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre)

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Giroul

¹

1550

Mr. Luc Desrochers (Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre)

¹

1555

Mr. Philippe Giroul

The Chair

Mr. Clément Dubois (Mayor of Nicolet, South Shore Representative, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre)

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

º

1610

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Barry Smith (Director, Ammunition Program Management, Department of National Defence)

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Barry Smith

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Barry Smith

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

º

1615

The Chair

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

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Gordon Hunter

º

1620

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Giroul

The Chair

Mr. Bertrand Allard (Mayor of Pierreville, South Shore Representative, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre)

º

1625

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Barry Smith

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Barry Smith

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Gordon Hunter

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Hunter

The Chair

º

1645

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 033

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to all of you, particularly the witnesses who are here from the Lake Saint-Pierre region. I would like to extend a special thanks to Mr. Bigras for taking the initiative to revisit the file on the Munitions Experimental Test Centre in Nicolet.

    The Department of National Defence is also represented here this afternoon. We will have to determine which group will speak first.

    Mr. Hunter, you will be leaving at 5 o'clock, is that correct?

[English]

    Mr. Gordon J. Hunter (Director General, Equipment Program Service, Department of National Defence): That's correct, sir. I have to leave here at five o'clock.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Shall we agree to let Mr. Hunter speak first?

    Mr. Hunter, you have the floor. I would like to welcome you and your colleague.

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee. My name is Gordon Hunter and today I am pleased to give you an update on the progress that has been made and the planning related to a number of environmental and security issues at Lake Saint-Pierre which, as you know, is located near Nicolet, in Quebec.

    As Director General for the Equipment Program Service for the Department of National Defence, I am responsible for a whole host of joint procurement and support services for the department and the Canadian Armed Forces. One of our main tasks involves the supply of munitions to the armed forces. The supply is rigorously controlled, safe and convenient.

    Mr. Barry Smith, who works for me, is the Director of Ammunition Program Management. Mr. Denis Sanschagrin, who works for Mr. Smith, is the Superintendent of the Munitions Experimental Test Centre, located in Valcartier, Quebec. He is responsible for the Nicolet proof testing bench.

[English]

    When I last appeared before this committee in May 1999, a major concern expressed at that time was the noise levels at the site caused by our proof testing. At that point, we had just recently completed the installation of a noise attenuation device, which is essentially a large muffler covering the gun and firing site for large calibre testing, which effectively reduced the noise levels. Subsequently, we've installed noise monitoring stations at strategic points near our test range, and this equipment allows us to measure in real time the noise levels to ensure we are conforming to provincial standards. Whenever we go outside of those standards, we stop our testing.

    The Minister of National Defence, the Honourable John McCallum, appeared in front of this committee on May 15 of this year, and at that time the minister was asked about our plans for dealing with the unexploded ordnance present in Lac Saint-Pierre.

[Translation]

    In his response, the minister made three comments, and I quote:

Firstly, we stopped firing ammunition into the lake in January 2000. That does not entirely resolve the problem, but it is 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 have been told that this type of recovery operation could pose a danger to the lake. We have 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 do not have a long term solution to this problem right now. However, we are continuing to work on one.

    We have not yet found a solution to the technical problem. It is a very delicate environment, and the current solution could do more environmental harm than anything else. To be honest, I must admit that at the present time, we have no long term solution to this problem, but we are working on it.

[English]

    I would now like to provide some additional detail in support of the minister's response. The minister's first point was that we stopped shooting into the lake in January 2000. In fact, between my last appearance before this committee in May 1999 and January 2000, we designed, built, tested, and then commissioned a concrete stop butt on land that could be used without affecting the lake, to enable the continued contract compliance testing of our ammunition.

    In addition, we took steps to relocate to other sites any long-range firing that was still required. Specifically, we now use the firing ranges at other DND sites for long-range requirements.

    The minister also mentioned that we perform regular sweeps of the shoreline. In fact, in recent years we've conducted an annual sweep of the shoreline at a cost of approximately $400,000 per year, and I'm pleased to report that the number of projectiles recovered during these annual sweeps has declined dramatically. In 1999, for example, we recovered 462 projectiles; in 2001, only 325; in 2002, we dropped to 91; and this past year, we recovered only 51 projectiles.

¹  (1535)  

    The minister's third point, and I'm sure the most important point to this committee, dealt with the question of the long-term recovery of the projectiles already in the lake. The minister noted at that time that we do not have a specific long-term solution to that problem.

    We have, in fact, done a great deal of work over the past three years toward achieving that objective. First, we established a very active steering committee, composed of senior representatives from the Department of National Defence, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the Coast Guard, and Health Canada. The committee itself established four working groups that have been very active: one dealing with technology; one dealing with public safety and security; one dealing with communications; and the last one dealing with the environment.

    If you're interested, Mr. Smith can provide details on those committees during the question and answer period, but I would like to spend just a minute describing the working group that's dealing with technology. It really deals with the challenge we face in removing unexploded ordnance or projectiles from the lake.

    In July 2002 we issued a letter of interest to industry that asked for proposals related to the removal of unexploded ordnance from Lac Saint-Pierre. We received 13 submissions, 7 of which dealt solely with the project management aspects of this understanding, but the remaining 6 submissions offered technical proposals and varying solutions. The one critical deficiency of all of these proposals was the inability to differentiate between an inert and an unexploded ordnance round when they're underwater. In fact, to our knowledge, the technology required to do this does not exist, although there are many nations and many companies working on achieving just such a solution. I'm told that at least one company in Canada is very close to achieving a solution in this area. We're following the developments in this area very closely, and we are anxious that a solution becomes available so that we may begin in earnest the task of identifying and removing the unexploded rounds from Lac Saint-Pierre.

    A very important point for this committee to understand is that the only method available today to remove a round whose status cannot be confirmed, as unexploded ordnance or an inert round, is to attach a charge and to blow it in situ. The impact that such a process would have on the lake bed, the flora and the fauna, and the environment in general is obviously totally unacceptable.

    We're continuing to look for technologies capable of supporting our recovery efforts, and at the same time we're actively assessing the environmental impact of the current situation. In order to find out if UXO, or unexploded ordnance materials, are in fact contaminating the lake, extensive sampling of the lake bed was conducted through an independent study commissioned by Environment Canada. The results of that study indicated that the explosive substances used in munitions were not having an adverse impact on the lake. Essentially, the projectiles are not leaking or leaching any material.

    I have been advised that the mayor of Nicolet and possibly the mayor of Pierreville are also present today. I would be pleased to discuss their individual dredging proposals during the question and answer period, or if I'm permitted a couple of minutes at the end, I could make some initial comments.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have made a great deal of progress, particularly over the last three years, and I expect that we will accomplish even more in the future. This has always been and will continue to be a priority for my department. Our intention is to prepare and implement a public safety and environmental protection plan for Lake Saint-Pierre.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me just a couple of minutes, I could make a comment on the dredging proposals from the two municipalities.

    At present we have received requests from both the municipalities of Nicolet and Pierreville for assistance in dredging proposals they have. At this point we are supporting a project initiated by the municipality of Nicolet to dredge the boat channel into their local marina. The specific channel is downstream from our range, but we believe it is prudent to conduct all the necessary clearances of unexploded ordnance in the interest of public safety.

    In fact, I did sign a letter to the mayor of Nicolet, Monsieur Dubois, on September 29. I was advised at the start of this committee meeting that the mayor unfortunately had not received a copy. We have given him a copy of our letter, but we did send it on September 29 indicating that we will provide financial assistance for the project.

    Essentially our approach would be to fund the delta between the normal dredging project that the mayor would like to undertake with his municipality and the extra work that is required to assure that no unexploded ordnance are present when the dredging takes place.

    A similar initiative relates to the Tardif channel, which is located near Pierreville. This initiative is far more complex, as the channel is much longer and will traverse the main impact area of our former range. In this case, we have advised the mayor of Pierreville that a more complete plan, which includes a comprehensive environmental assessment, will need to be completed as well as any necessary permits obtained before an evaluation and ultimate decision can be made by our department related to our potential participation or financial assistance.

    I did write to Mayor Allard on October 13, advised him of this, and offered assistance in this matter.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are now ready to answer your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate you for the initiatives that you have taken, namely ending the firing into Lake Saint-Pierre as of January 2000 and the sweeping of the shoreline, at a cost of almost $400,000 per year. There is still more to be done, including stepping up restoration of the lake, and ending the Battery 11 firing exercises, sweeping for shells and putting an end to the operations.

    Have you any comments to make on what should be done that has not already been taken care of?

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact we have spent approximately $5.7 million related to environmental initiatives at Lac Saint-Pierre over the past three years. Plus we have spent $1.2 million on the stop butt and the noise reduction or attenuation measures, for a total of about $8.5 million.

    In addition to the shoreline sweeps, sir, we have been involved in a risk analysis project concerning the removal of rounds from the bed of the lake versus not removing them. We spent $115,000 on that. We spent $571,000 on studies related to characterizing remediation of contaminants and potentially contaminated areas around the site. On risk management of ground water and surface water, we spent $80,000.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Yes, but I am not asking for a spending list, which is very good of you. When will this firing battery number 11, for instance, come to cessation?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Maybe I will--

    The Chair: It is part of the list raised by our witnesses today, so we might as well address it.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I assume battery 11 is the battery that we used for firing the stuff up. Is that correct?

    Mr. Sanschagrin, the superintendent of the METC, could respond to that question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Denis Sanschagrin (Superintendent, Munitions Experimental Test Centre, Department of National Defence): Battery 11 is used mostly for 25 mm calibre ammunition, which is an average size.

    The Chair: When do you intend to cease operations at the battery?

    Mr. Denis Sanschagrin: We have no intention of stopping these exercises at this time. You must understand that our operations are based on noise level criteria. These have been established in conjunction with the provincial government. Therefore, so far, our exercises have, for the most part, met the noise level criteria that have been set by the provincial government. This has been stated repeatedly in our meetings with the Comité de vigilance du lac Saint-Pierre.

    The Chair: I have no intention of examining each issue. That is your job. I simply wanted to give you our wish list in order to get our discussion off to a good start.

[English]

    Mr. Mills, would you like to go first or second?

[Translation]

    Mr. Giroul, would you like to speak now?

    Mr. Philippe Giroul (Secretary, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my presentation.

    Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank you for allowing us to appear and for accepting Mr. Bernard Bigras' suggestion, which was supported by some of his colleagues, honourable members Claude Bachand, Gagnon, Plamondon and Rocheleau. They are all interested in finding a quick solution to the Lake Saint-Pierre problem. I would now like to introduce the members of our delegation: Mr. Clément Dubois, Mayor of Nicolet; Mr. Bertrand Allard, Mayor of Pierreville, and his assistant, Simon Allaire; Claude Lemire, who represents the fishers; and Luc Desrochers from the Groupe d'action pour la restoration du lac Saint-Pierre.

    I would quickly like to summarize the issue for the benefit of members who were not present during our first appearance before this committee on May 5, 1999.

    The Chair: We can read your brief. Could you begin by listing the pros and cons please?

    Mr. Philippe Giroul: The first two pages provide background information. On page 3, we state that 10,000 shots are fired per year. I would simply like to make a comment: 10,000 shots per year means 5 million rounds and in four years it would represent 14 million rounds for the entire Canadian Armed Forces, or 2,300 for each of the 6,000 active members.

    Here is the list of positive accomplishments since 1999. As you said, the shooting exercises over Lake Saint-Pierre ended in January 2000, and in November 2000, Lake Saint-Pierre was included on the list of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Comité de vigilance has met 15 times, and the minutes of their proceedings are available. The steering committee mentioned earlier was formed in June 2001; it is chaired by Mr. Barry Smith from the Department of National Defence and Ms. Bérard from Environment Canada, and there are 14 members. However, this committee is subdivided into four working groups with a total of 31 people involved. So we have a large number of people representing four departments and five organizations. There's no shortage of people to examine the situation, identify the problems and attempt to find solutions. A fifth group could have examined issues related to the psycho-socio-economic aspects of this file.

    There is also a very sophisticated noise measurement system that relies on an answering machine to record citizens' complaints. Mr. Desrochers can give you more information on that in a few minutes. Two environmental studies were carried out by Environment Canada, the first one dealing with the sediment quality in the southern part of Lake Saint-Pierre and the second one dealing with vegetation. This was a three-year study. Companies that may be able to provide technical solutions were approached by way of a letter of interest. The shoreline restoration contract, with a budget of $400,000 per year, was awarded to SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. It was given extensive press coverage, and a number of articles and editorials in various Canadian and even European journals and magazines were written about it. A press kit will be available. There was radio and television coverage of the METC in Nicolet. A number of letters have been written to the departments of National Defence and of the Environment. And the Office of the Auditor General has also been involved.

    New sound suppressors were tested on the batteries that could not be used with the first version; it was just a test. A public awareness campaign was mounted to explain the dangers surrounding these activities: there were brochures, posters, etc. A lovely presentation was made on the installation of 57 so-called safety buoys around the zone that had been identified, and these buoys went into service in June of 2003 at an initial cost of $130,000 plus $20,000 per year.

    Mr. Bachand was made aware of the rivers that needed to be made safer. Messrs. Dubois and Allaire will discuss that point later on. That is the list of positive accomplishments; I hope I have not forgotten any.

    Now for the negative aspects. The land shooting exercises are continuing. There are about 10,000 per year, and according to the noise reports, a large majority take place without the silencers that cost many millions of dollars. Yet, according to what Mr. Hunter has said, it was the intention of the Department of National Defence and SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. that these silencers be used 100% of the time as of 2002.

    It would appear that the new silencers did not meet the requirements since we can still regularly hear the cannons on the north and south shores. A number of rounds have missed their mark and have fallen into the lake. We don't know whether or not they were recovered.

    The noise and vibration continue to affect the environment, even though the Quebec Environment Department's standards for quarries and sand pits were to be respected, and have nothing to do with the firing of shells. SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. tried to find another location—and this is important—to set up another firing range. They scouted Parent, north of La Tuque, but they were met with strong opposition. SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. is looking elsewhere. Has the company been successful? We don't know yet, but we are hopeful.

    Mr. Desrochers will now deal with noise management, which we feel is inadequate because it relies on the use of an impersonal answering machine.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Luc Desrochers (Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to tell you about the complaints handling process. When you lodge a complaint, it's rather complex. You call up, a machine answers you and gives you multiple choices. Number 1 is for the day's activities, then you have number 2, number 3 and you have to wait until you get to number 8 to be able to lodge a complaint and finally a lot of people get impatient and hang up before getting to number 8.

    On top of that, because of the procedure established by the Department of National Defence, complaints are recorded on voice mail. So first you have to listen and then lodge a complaint. You don't know when it will be addressed. It's the responsibility of the firing range officer. If a four-hour period isn't respected and if the noise is too loud, then he'll communicate with the complainant. There's a whole series of procedures which mean that complaints are always dealt with after the shooting is over.

    People have asked us for information. They find it's totally absurd to have to go through voice mail and then be told that the shooting is over, that the complaint has been registered, thank you, goodbye, have a nice day. In our opinion this system is inadequate, impersonal and does not encourage human contact.

    Then, when you look at the complaints that were filed, you'll see that it's often done when there is no shooting according to the National Defence registry. So we have to improve things on that side. According to National Defence, they should be using silencers up to 90% of the time while according to shooting reports they're only used 5% of the time. That was supposed to have been done in 2002. So the complaint system, in our opinion, is inadequate, impersonal and only standardizes the department's norms.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Philippe Giroul: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that National Defence refuses to give out the noise reports from the sound level metre installed in Nicolet under the pretext that there are no complaints from that area. In the Auditor General's report, there's nothing on the usefulness of the METC's activities and the Canadian army's munitions inventory. Correspondence was exchanged on that. The latest letter I received had this to say:

Last year we undertook an in-depth environmental audit of the Minister of National Defence's training and testing sites. Although we have not yet determined the extent of that audit, the department's activities located in Nicolet are included in our present work.

    We've had no news since April 2002.

    Moreover, the purchase of munitions is a matter of government policy and National Defence cannot deal with that. The department did not answer the request for information letter on decontamination sent in by 13 or 15 respondents. Sorry, I have to rectify. I learned yesterday that Mr. Caldwell, Contract Negotiations Officer, probably sent a letter dated 23 october, in other words one year later. That letter says:

The department came to the conclusion that there is no existing technology that can answer the needs. Moreover, the cost forecast was higher than the so-called realistic funding level for the project's initial pilot phase.

    Curiously, $130,000 was spent on buoys—we can talk about that later—without any question being put concerning the level of funding. We could ask Messrs. Hunter and Smith how they explain the delay concerning this operation to find urgent solutions for safety. The request for information letter was sent out in April 2002 and they answered only one year later.

    I will now give the floor to Mr. Clément Dubois, the Mayor of Nicolet, who will tell us about the dramatic situation of the two rivers to be dredged, the Nicolet River and the Tardif Channel.

    The Chair: Mr. Dubois, you have the floor.

    Mr. Clément Dubois (Mayor of Nicolet, South Shore Representative, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll give you a bit of a historical overview on the dredging of the Nicolet River because you aren't familiar with it.

    Early in 2002, a citizen, a lady who uses a boat, wanted to get it out of the river. She made me aware of the problem of access to the Nicolet River at low tide. She gave me letters of support for the famous dredging. The city of Nicolet accepted to sponsor the project because there had to be a public organization involved to be able to ask for aid. We decided to support the matter, but the municipality of Nicolet had not provided any money for dredging in its budget.

    On 23 August, 2002, I received a copy of a letter sent to Ms. Isabelle Olivier who is an engineer at the Quebec Environment Department, by Mr. Denis Sanschagrin who is a superintendent for the Department of National Defence, Nicolet Section. Mr. Sanschagrin said in his letter, and I quote:

In the same vein, at the end of your letter you mention the possibility that the municipality of Nicolet might do some dredging at the mouth of the Nicolet River in order to facilitate navigation for pleasure crafts. Unfortunately, we cannot in that case either state that there is no danger. The problem here lies in the fact that the ice during spring breakup might move projectiles around. So even though there was no geophysical mapping at that location, it is possible that projectiles might be present in that area of the river.

    Now, on september 16, 2002, we met Minister André Boisclair who was the ministre d'État aux Affaires municipales et à la Métropole, à l'Environnement et à l'Eau, in order to make him aware of our problem. His answer was that according to the new water policy, he was ready to give us a maximum of 50% of the cost or $50,000 depending on the cost of the dredging. Nevertheless, as long as there may be shells at the mouth of the river, our project cannot move forward.

    On December 10, 2002, I sent a letter to Mr. Denis Sanschagrin asking him to please do that geophysical mapping at the mouth of the Nicolet River so that we could be sure that the location was safe before engaging in any kind of dredging work. On January 17, Mr. Rem Westland, Director-General, Real Property, Policy and Planning, at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, answered the letter I had sent to Mr. Sanschagrin on December 10, 2002. In his letter, Mr. Westland said:

On the face of it, I doubt that the department could recommend that kind of work without being absolutely sure about the exact location and danger that the unexploded ammunition might cause in that sector. I recommend that the city re-evaluate whether there is a real need for this project.

    On February 4, I answered Mr. Westland:

To my knowledge, the shells at the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre are your responsibility and the exact location where the dredging is to be done has been identified.

Am I to understand from what you say that you are insensitive to the rights of the users who boat and fish in those waters and who wish to use that point of access to Lake Saint-Pierre? You are asking us to be understanding even though I doubt that you or your department might be.

    On February 17, Mr. Westland answered me; he was quite apologetic and said he was sorry I had interpreted his letter that way. Nevertheless he did confirm that the advice of experts in the matter of unexploded munitions had been sought and that he believed he might be in a position to answer our letter of December 10 soon. Early in April, 2003, the Groupe Océan Inc., EOD Division, presented us with a plan to dredge the sand from the mouth of the Tardif Channel and the Nicolet River, because that group had worked on both files. It was mentioned that decontamination costs would be $4,313 a day and that installation and removal of equipment would cost $3,213.

    On April 8, I wrote Mr. Westland and asked him to specify, based on the information given by Groupe Océan Inc., EOD Division, what share of the costs the Department of National Defence was ready to take on in order to complete the Nicolet River dredging project, as the project was of prime importance for the city of Nicolet.

º  (1600)  

    On June 27, 2003, Mr. Westland sent me an answer that said, and I quote:

I regret to inform you that we can not give a positive reply to your letter. I am not in a position to tell you whether or not DND can contribute to the clean-up of the section of the river concerned, nor can I give you any information on any possibility of funding by DND.

    Earlier, Mr. Hunter mentioned that a letter was sent to me on September 29, 2003. I had not received that letter, a copy of which was given to me earlier. In the letter, he says:

...the department has completed the examination of your request and has agreed to provide financial assistance to the municipality of Nicolet for dredging operations on the Nicolet River boat channel.

    Of course, there is no indication of any kind of amount and I find that curious. I actually thank Mr. Hunter for going that far, except that up on the left-hand corner, I can see that the fax was sent to the city of Nicolet on October 30, 2003, 10:57 a.m., in other words this morning.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Hunter, for our own overall understanding, you're the only one who can answer that question to go to the heart of the issue.

    The French army, the British army, the Dutch army, the Italian army--where do they try their blessed ammunitions? Where do they go? In the Sahara or in Greenland? Where do they do that?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Every NATO nation has a proof testing range. In the United States they have Aberdeen proof testing range. They have a variety of other ones, but every nation has a proof testing range.

    I did visit Shoeburyness, a demolition and proof testing range in the U.K., and they actually shoot out on the water, out over the ocean, and when the ocean recedes, they go out and pick up the projectiles.

    The Chair: Can't we rent their facilities and do our testing with them? They must have found areas where the population does not object. It would cost much less than all this.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Frankly, we have a very good working relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and generally with the local population in Nicolet.

    Since 1999, when I appeared before your committee, sir, as I pointed out and you commented on, we did stop shooting in the lake. We have relocated the majority, or half, of our work probably. All of the long-range testing, which we previously did before 1999, we've moved to other DND sites that are less obtrusive to the local population.

    We have noise monitoring stations. We follow very carefully the provincial standards for noise. Whenever we exceed them, we stop immediately. As far as we are concerned, sir, we are taking very aggressive action toward being in compliance with the local community. To protect the population we have gone to schools and put on seminars to school children about the inherent dangers. We have signs posted all the way around the community. We have brochures such as this. We put buoys in the lake to indicate the area to boating people.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: How about closing battery 11? What is so essential about it? Can't you do the battery 11 in conjunction with another area south of the border or in the U.K.?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: There is a government direction, a policy issued by cabinet in 1978, called the munitions supply program. The intention of the munitions supply program, or as we refer to it, the MSP, is to maintain in Canada an indigenous capability for the Canadian Forces in the area of munitions. Five companies are identified specifically in that government direction that we're following: SNC-Industrial Technologies Inc., which was Canadian Arsenals, for the production of conventional ammunition; Bristol Aerospace for CRV7 rocket systems; Diemaco for small arms, which makes handguns and rifles; Ingersoll Machine Tools, or IMT, which make casings, projectile forgings--

    The Chair: Does the cabinet directive make it mandatory to test in Canada?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: What I'm saying, sir, is that our understanding of the munitions supply program is that Canada wants to have an indigenous capability related to munitions. You cannot have that if you don't have a testing capability in Canada. As far as I'm concerned, the munitions supply program, which was a cabinet direction from 1978 and is still in force, requires us to have a proof testing capability in this country.

    It is not inconceivable what you ask, Mr. Chairman, that SNC Technologies engage other foreign companies' or other militaries' proof testing ranges to carry out some of our proof testing. That is possible, but it is certainly not the direction we're pursuing.

    What we're pursuing at the moment is requiring SNC Technologies to proof test their ammunition and deliver it to us with the results of those tests. We offered them the use of the site at Nicolet, as it's a DND-owned and controlled facility, and very suitable for their purposes.

    There are not many options in this country related to proof testing. We have relocated the long-range firing since 1999 when I was last here. We've moved that to other sites such as Gagetown, Petawawa, and so on. We're looking for other sites outside of Gagetown and Petawawa to carry out that work. For this specific work we're doing in Nicolet, adjacent to Lac Saint-Pierre, we are in compliance with the noise regulations defined by the province of Quebec. We have a very good working relationship. We employ about 40 people in Nicolet, and we contribute about $4 million a year into the local economy. These are high-tech jobs. These are engineers, highly specialized technicians.

    People seem very happy with the exception of the environmental issues that we've been actively dealing with and very aggressively trying to mitigate.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

    There will be one round of questions. Let's make it tight and crisp, one question each, and then we'll see whether we have a second one.

    Mr. Mills, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I have a comment to start off with. I've been trying to get one shell for Remembrance Day for the legion in my community, and we can't get one shell. You're firing off 10,000 shells. I wish we could get one of them, at least, to remember some of our war veterans. It seems a strange thing we're going through here.

    I wonder how much testing you've done of the fish for toxic levels arising from the shells in the lake.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I'm not specifically aware, and I don't know if Mr. Smith is, but I will look into getting a shell for your legion between now and Remembrance Day. That's not very long, but I will take that on and see what I can do about that.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I'll get your card after.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: No promises, but I'll do what I can.

    Mr. Smith, are you familiar with any work we've done related to fish testing?

    Mr. Barry Smith (Director, Ammunition Program Management, Department of National Defence): We haven't done anything specifically for fish, but we have done a sediment study in the lake, as Mr. Giroul has mentioned. We've also completed a magnetometre study of the range to identify the magnetic material—metal specifically—in the range, to determine the significance and the quantity of it. The third area we're looking at is initiating development of a water-sampling protocol to ensure that the condition of the water is not negatively affected once we can start removing projectiles, once that technology is available. But specifically on the fish, we haven't done anything in that area.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Can I just ask one more?

    The Chair: Yes, a brief one.

    Mr. Bob Mills: As to the cleanup process, have you any experience with cleanup in other places where this has been done? Somebody must have had to do it in the past.

    Mr. Barry Smith: In terms of underwater cleanup?

    Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

    Mr. Barry Smith: Not on a large scale like the range we have. There has been some limited cleanup on river beds. But in terms of trying to identify unexploded ordnances, as Mr. Hunter has mentioned, versus just dud or inert rounds, that technology has not been identified. It's very difficult to do.

    You can remove certainly unexploded ordnances from underwater, but as Mr. Hunter mentioned, the only means of doing it, if you don't know if it's a live round or not, is to blow the rounds in situ.

    In our steering committee, as Mr. Giroul mentioned, we discussed that with Environment Canada and Health Canada and Canadian Coast Guard officials and other members of the committee. It was deemed to be completely unacceptable, because of the quantity of ammunition that's in the lake, to try to dispose of it in that manner.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

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

    I'm fascinated when I see that in 2003 a department like yours can continue test firing near a community. I understand what you've told me, in other words that a cabinet directive says that we must preserve Canada's capacity and that those firing ranges should be established in Canada, but there is probably nothing in that directive forcing your department to do it so close to a community. In my opinion, that is what we have to oppose. It's fine for you to distribute flyers and advise the population, but you're not applying the basic precautionary principle that would seem to require the immediate cessation of any firing. If you have any respect at all for the citizens as such, as well as for the recognized heritage environment that is at stake, you should at the very least tell us today that you will implement a moratorium on test firings on your ranges.

    Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at what has been announced today. For example, we are told that a sound level metre has been installed close to Nicolet. That's fine, but we'd like the reports to be made public. Can you make a commitment today to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that you will table the reports of the studies done using the present infrastructure in Nicolet? Will you make a commitment today to table those reports as well as the results of the studies?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras. Mr. Hunter, if you please.

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Thank you.

    I was actually surprised by the opening comments related to that issue and was unaware we were not making public our reports. I will investigate whether or not there are legislative reasons that do not allow us to release that data, but if that's not the case, then I will ensure that we do release the data we have related to sound monitoring.

    Mr. Bigras, the idea of the moratorium on our site related to the residual firing we do there is not something I would personally recommend we entertain. We are complying with noise regulations defined by the province. We do have other test firing ranges in this country that are adjacent to populations. In fact, populations grow up beside them--for example, Petawawa where we practise, Gagetown where we practise, and so on. Nicolet had 160 employees in the year 1992, and even more than that in the years before. In fact, a good part of the population, I'm told, was created around the site because it was a central employer in Nicolet. There are a number of people who are very pleased with the presence of this site. I continue to believe that and continue to hear that from our people. I know there are people who have concerns, and we're addressing the concerns as best we can.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Comartin, do you have one question?

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Hunter, I guess I'm having some difficulty. I'm looking at these gentlemen here on one hand--and I have to say to you that I wasn't here in 1999 when this issue was before the committee at that time. I hear you say you have a good working relationship with the community, but I'm not hearing that from this side of the table. Do you seriously believe you are satisfying the local community in their concerns?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I do. I know there are some issues and we're working very hard on those issues. We had 48 noise complaints during the entire year. From January on we've had 48 noise complaints, but something like 80% of those were from four people. I will follow up. I was surprised, and I appreciate the concerns expressed by our colleague witnesses related to the impersonal approach of our hotline, if you will, for complaints. I will look into that, because, frankly, going through eight steps to be able to voice a complaint into a tape recorder would not be satisfying to me either. I'll look into whether or not we can improve on that process, but I believe it's a small but vocal and very passionate sector of the community that is very concerned, and I want to work very openly and communicate and figure out how we can mediate these issues so we can work together to achieve good results.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Szabo, please.

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

    Mr. Hunter, there are 300,000 projectiles remaining in the lake today, of which 8,000 are potentially dangerous. This is absolutely astounding, it really is, when I think of all of the rules and regulations we have at all levels of government, that this situation could have been allowed to be created in the first place. It's probably going to cost more to clean it up than to have discharged the test firing in the first place, and it may create lifelong damage to the environment.

    I just don't see a commitment or a sensitivity to this problem. I know that when the minister was here, one of the points that came out was that there was not enough money in the entire defence budget to clean up all the sites that were contaminated.

    Do we in fact still live in an environment with a federal government that can permit this stuff to happen in the first place? Are those things closed now? Can this ever happen again? Can you promise, can you attest to this committee, that this will never, ever happen again?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Actually, I'm going to be 55 next month, so it's pretty hard for me to make promises for the people who will be following me.

    I was four years old when people starting shooting into Lac Saint-Pierre in 1952. We can't really offer any explanation for the first 40 or 50 years of this, but we have taken decisive action following our appearance in front of this committee. We were looking at that before that, but it certainly prompted us and gave us an initiative to get moving.

    We stopped shooting into the lake. Now we're working on improving the situation: 300,000 projectiles in the lake and 8,000, we estimate, unexploded ordnance.

    I agree with you that it's a very serious situation. It took 50 years to create. As I pointed out in my opening statement, there is no technology in the world that we know of--and we're looking very actively--to identify between unexploded and inert rounds under water.

    Somebody is very close to this, and we are pushing and following this very closely. We're anxious to get the technology. We're anxious to get on with improving the identification and recovery of the unexploded ordnance from the lake.

    We're very anxious to do that, but the world seems to be in unison on the fact that the only approach available is unacceptable, which is to blow in situ all the unidentifiable rounds--which would be the vast majority, unfortunately.

    So we're doing everything we can around it. We pick up on the shoreline. We're putting up signs. We're doing everything related to safety and security. We're marking with buoys. We're aggressively following this, sir, I assure you, and we're as anxious as anyone to get the technology.

    There is a very strong commitment in the department--I definitely feel that--towards cleaning up the unexploded ordnance from this lake. It's not a lack of will or a lack of interest on that score whatsoever.

    So we're anxious--and I wasn't sure if my colleague was complaining or congratulating us about the fact that we have 35 people working on this. But we have five committees, with large membership. I think that shows the level of interest and commitment on the part of all federal agencies involved in this situation.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I wish I could say thank you, Mr. Chairman, but it really is disgusting.

    The Chair: Let's put this within a context.

    There's no doubt that the department is doing whatever it can within the framework of its own instructions and following the 1978 directive by cabinet that we didn't know existed. So they're doing what they can. But obviously what was a good or acceptable initiative in 1952 is no longer acceptable 50 years later, because of population growth and a number of other considerations that at that time probably did not exist or were not included in the assessments. So it's obvious that something needs to be done.

    I would propose that as a follow-up to this meeting we prepare a letter addressed to the minister urging him to re-examine the 1978 cabinet directive and make the necessary changes that will lead eventually to the closing down of these operations. This seems to me to be one option before us. But if the members of this committee have better alternatives, by all means, we'll make another round and see whether other ideas emerge so that we allow these people to go home with something in their hands. The department can only do what it has been instructed to do. I think we have from them as much information as we can get.

    Let's make another round then.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: My only other question would be, looking at the wish list in the presentation we had, how many of those things are achievable, and how many and which ones are not?

    I believe you have a copy of that wish list.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I personally do not.

    Mr. Bob Mills: There are 10 items or so there.

    The Chair: Do the two groups communicate with each other? Do you people talk to each other?

[Translation]

    Do you communicate with one another?

    Mr. Giroul.

    Mr. Philippe Giroul: There were 15 meetings of the Comité de vigilance and we speak to one another there, but apart from that there has been no other communication. It's very difficult. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Allard would like to make a brief statement.

    The Chair: We'll allow Mr. Hunter to read the list. If you speak after that you'll have to be brief.

    Mr. Bertrand Allard (Mayor of Pierreville, South Shore Representative, Groupe d'action et de restauration du lac Saint-Pierre): The municipality of Pierreville received a request for dredging of the Tardif Channel in 2002. We turned to the Department of the Environment, which could not give its approval because we are in a firing range where there might be shells. The record of the correspondence with the departments of the Environment and National Defence was tabled.

    On June 19, 2002, during a meeting of the Lake Saint-Pierre vigilance committee, the Quebec Environment Department, represented by Ms. Olivier, was informed that the firing test zone goes all the way from west of the sector to be dredged in Lake Saint-Pierre, above the Tardif Channel. Most of the shells present in that zone are inert but some unexploded shells could still be found there. Therefore, the Department of the Environment went to the Department of National Defence to make sure that the zone which is to be dredged is free of shells and that there is zero risk of accidents that might be caused by dredging operations.

    On 26 July, 2002, in answer to the June 7 letter, the Department of Defence through Mr. Denis Sanschagrin informed us that there was indeed a moderately high risk of finding shells in the area in question. That kind of firing range is considered, to a certain extent, as being a zone contaminated by unexploded ammunition. The department recommends that we not venture into the firing range.

    On January 8, 2003, the municipality of Pierreville, through me, asked the Department of National Defence to make sure that no projectile was present in the dredging area. On January 24, 2003, the Quebec Department of the Environment had received no notice of the project.

    On January 27, the Quebec Department of the Environment sent us directives for the implementation of the impact study.

    On January 29, 2003, in answer to the letter of January 8, 2003, the Department of National Defence, through Mr. Westland, said that on the face of it, they doubted they were in a position to recommend that kind of work without being absolutely sure of the exact location of unexploded ammunition and the danger it could represent. He therefore recommended that the city re-evaluate whether there was a real need for this project. For the time being, a team of experts is busy collecting additional information on this project.

    On February 3, 2003, Mr. Sanschagrin from DND informed us that a preliminary review of Defence activities in the zone had been undertaken, in order to assess the probability of finding projectiles there related to prior operations.

    On February 7, the Department of National Defence, through Mr. Westland, added further details concerning the letter of January 29, 2003. He simply explained that the department had to engage in further study of the project submitted by the city.

    On February 26, 2003, DND announced that it intended to hand down a definitive decision as soon as possible. But the following letter was sent to us by the Department of National Defence on October 13, 2003, only. I'll read it to you as it is very brief:

You have submitted preliminary plans for dredging operations near the Tardif Channel of Lake Saint-Pierre. The exit of the Tardif Channel is inside a zone prescribed for munitions tests [...] that was fully active until the end of December 1999. Buoys advising pleasure craft of the presence of unexploded explosive ammunition now outline the whole marine perimeter of the firing range.

The promoters of the proposed dredging project for the Tardif Channel, including the municipality of Pierreville and other stakeholder organizations must present a detailed plan. Before the department makes any decision concerning the viability of the project or its financial participation, the project must be submitted to our technical experts for further examination.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Chairman, we gave a $50,000 contract to a firm to study the project without knowing whether we'd be able to do it and without knowing whether there were any shells there. If there are, we certainly can't go ahead with the project. At this point, we're trying to get an authorization certificate. However, the site must absolutely be decontaminated but the department says that they don't know if it is feasible. We have been approached by the commercial fishing community and tourists because that's the only place they can go through to get to Lake Saint-Pierre. It's of prime importance and that is why the municipality made a commitment to pay $50,000 for a study.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Mr. Allard, thank you for your intervention. I found it quite interesting.

[English]

    Mr. Hunter, can you give us a rundown on what is feasible on the wish list?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I'll try, Mr. Chairman. I'm certainly sensitive to all the points raised by the committee member.

    First of all, it's absolutely clear, in my view, that the Department of National Defence could never endorse, never approve, never support the dredging of any area unless we were absolutely certain that it was free from explosives and that there were no dangerous projectiles in the specific area under consideration. So that would be the basis of Mr. Sanschagrin's initial response.

    In the entire impact area of the former range we used, we have, according to our estimate, about 8,000 unexploded ordnance of the approximately 300,000 that remain in the area; therefore we could not with any certainty provide that assurance. That is the first point.

    Before we can evaluate our involvement--and certainly in the case of Nicolet we understand our responsibility, and in the case of Pierreville we will also, and we do understand our responsibility for the unexploded ordnance--we need to have, and this is what we were trying to communicate, a complete environmental assessment done by the municipality related to their intended dredging.

    There are permits that are required from Fisheries and Oceans, I believe, but there are certain permits and documentation required and a detailed plan of how the dredging would be approached. I understand it's six kilometres long, or something, across the impact area, and it's certainly quite an undertaking.

    I mentioned in my opening statement and continue to say that, to our knowledge, no technology exists for us to be able to identify the difference between unexploded ordnance and inert rounds; therefore it's extremely difficult to do what has been asked. But we do expect to learn something related to this technology and the application of various approaches in helping with the Nicolet dredging as we do a verification for the absence.... It's a much smaller area and much more controllable for us, so we expect to learn something from our technology, and we intend to use what we learn from the Nicolet project to assist us in dealing with the Tardif channel in the Pierreville initiative.

    What we've put back to the mayor of Pierreville is sort of an outline of the requirements that he and the municipality would have to do to provide us with certain information to allow us to evaluate our participation from a financial point of view.

    The Chair: Could you indicate with a “yes” those items on the wish list that you think are feasible?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, what I would prefer to do is take this wish list and undertake a commitment to provide an answer or response in writing to the authors of the wish list. Certainly we would send a copy to your committee for your information.

    The Chair: When can you do that? Would it be a matter of weeks?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Yes, in a matter of weeks. I'd say three to four weeks.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Mills, for your question.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: May we keep this list?

    The Chair: Of course.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I know the matter is complex but, in my opinion, we must have two objectives. First, we must look at stopping the firing tests. In theory, I support the letter you're going to present to us and that we will sign requesting that all firing tests cease. The second aspect, that I didn't mention before, is the matter of decontamination and extraction of the shells. In my opinion, that is very important.

    The department seems to indicate that a certain firm might have available at this time a technological solution which could be submitted to the department within a few months. There is apparently a firm which will have this technology available soon.

    I want to make sure of one thing: that the technology in question will really be used. I'm afraid that when plans are proposed to the department, it will answer that it doesn't have the necessary funds to use the proposed technology.

    Is there a budget in the department dedicated to the extraction of shells from the bottom of Lake Saint-Pierre? Is there one, yes or no? If there is none at all, I'm not sure that we'll be in a position to accept any proposal that is made. On the one hand, can you assure us that no technology was turned down to date by your department for budgetary reasons? On the other hand, can you assure us that the technology you'll be offered soon will be used and will not be subject to the availability of budgets in your department? The whole question of contaminated sites is very often dependent upon the funding available from departments.

    Locations have been identified, but often the departments do not have the necessary means to proceed with decontamination. Can you assure us that if the technology is offered to you it will be used and that decontamination will not be prevented for lack of funds?

º  (1635)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Hunter, would you like to answer?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Clearly I cannot assure you that the department would not proceed because of budgetary reasons. Clearly I cannot assure you of that. What I can assure you of is that my organization will put forward the business case related to the cleanup, depending on the technology that's available, shortly after it is available, and we will make the best case we can.

    The departmental budgetary process is such that priorities are fed in and decisions are made related to the allocation of resources, and I do not do that obviously. Clearly it would depend on the cost estimate of the cleanup to apply the technology when it becomes available. That will definitely influence the decision related to this. So I can't offer the assurances Mr. Bigras is looking for.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, there are no funds dedicated to decontamination. They know what the situation is and they could make plans to decontaminate a site, but there might not be any funding to go with that. So we're back to square one.

[English]

    The Chair: There are future budgets, and this is what I suppose Mr. Hunter is hinting at. We could include in our letter to the minister a reference to this point, namely that we urge him, once the technology is identified, to take the necessary step to include the necessary funds in the next budget in order to proceed with the decontamination. The point remains alive, and it is now a question of technological advancement. So we will keep that in the body of the letter.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Hunter.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Mr. Chairman, if I may, one point I forgot in response to Mr. Bigras is that I can confirm that the department has not turned down any technology offers in this area because of budgetary constraints. There have been no solutions brought forward.

    I would like to point out that the department has been very supportive in terms of resources allocated on this issue to date. I did mention that we've spent some $8 million related to environmental improvement initiatives in the department, so we've been getting a good share of the money because of the importance attached to this particular initiative.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Well, we will conclude this potentially explosive issue with two more questions.

    Mr. Comartin, and then Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Hunter, I guess I'm concerned about toxins, given that lengthy history. I assume there's no inventory to tell us what types of toxins may have ended up in the lake through those munitions; you can indicate otherwise. But are the fish being tested? Is the water being tested? Are there soil samples being taken? Is the vegetation being tested to see if there is any leakage of toxins into the lake?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Environment Canada commissioned a study of soil samples strategically taken throughout the impact area, a fairly expensive study that we supported financially, but it was done independently through a third party that Environment contracted. The determination of that study was that there was no discernible negative environmental impact because of the presence of the projectiles. In other words, there was no leakage detectable from the munitions that are in the lake at the present time.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: When was that done, and is it public?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: It was finished in, I think, 2002.

    Mr. Barry Smith: I think so. Mr. Giroul has a report that he tabled earlier on this. I believe it was 2002.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: We undertook it immediately after we stopped shooting in the lake.

    In regard to water and fish testing, Mr. Smith, maybe you could repeat some of the points you made earlier.

    Mr. Barry Smith: In terms of the water sampling, we did the sediment testing. We're looking at a water sampling protocol agreement to examine the water, as I mentioned earlier, in the event that we can start removing projectiles, to determine if there's any impact from removal on the water sampling itself.

    With regard to fish, we haven't done any specific testing.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Szabo, do you have a question?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Just one, following up, I guess, from the theme of my previous question.

    Mr. Hunter, are you satisfied that today we have in place the safeguards and the checks and balances to ensure no other test ranges would ever be established without going through all the necessary steps to ensure we are mitigating the impacts on the areas the other witnesses have raised--generally, the environmental impacts--and the efficacy, I guess, of the test range?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: I'm not sure I understand the question completely, but you're--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Can this ever happen again?

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: In terms of water?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Do we have things in place to make sure test ranges would never get set up to cause these kinds of problems?

    I mean, if that doesn't resonate with you really quick in terms of what the hell's your question, then I'm really very concerned, Mr. Hunter, that we're not on the same wavelength--you're not on the same wavelength in terms of the issues raised by these people.

    I asked you the first time around and I mentioned it in my question. I said following from my theme in the first question, how the heck could this happen? Don't we have rules and regs? Now I'm saying, are they in place now so this doesn't happen again?

    I really don't expect you to come back to me and say, “Well I'm not sure I really understand your question”.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo, allow Mr. Hunter to reply, please.

    Mr. Gordon Hunter: Your question was clearer to me the second time, and I apologize if I didn't pick it up the first time in exactly the same vein.

    Yes, I believe we do have processes in place to ensure this will not happen again. Every directorate, every division in the Department of National Defence is required to have a sustainable development plan, and we have one. I have one for every directorate in my organization, of which there are seven.

    I believe the Government of Canada in general over the past 35 years has continually placed much more emphasis on the issues related to the environment than presumably they did 50 years ago when this started. I wasn't part of it when it started, but presumably it changed dramatically.

    So I believe this could not happen again, but I can't assure you of that because I'm not responsible for all aspects of the government.

    The Chair: Let me wrap it up by saying this. First, we want to thank Mr. Hunter for the efforts made so far in beginning to meet the understandable objections of the people.

º  (1645)  

[Translation]

    I would also like to thank the mayors from the south shore who are present here, as well as everyone else who came, for their perseverance and for having taken the initiative of coming to see us again. I also thank you for the patience you have shown to date.

[English]

    I would like to say to Mr. Hunter and his colleagues that this committee is fully committed to resolving this matter. Maybe it is a matter of time and, as you say, of technology and funds, but we want to make this a permanent file for attention in this committee's normal activities. So we look forward to seeing you again, even if sometimes the discussion becomes tense. We look forward to this exchange. We think the citizens have a case that requires full political attention. We are also confident that the department is committed to finding a solution in the long term for this particular activity to eventually come to an end.

    So on behalf of all the members of the committee, nous vous remercions. Thank you very much. Perhaps we'll see you again next year.

    The meeting is adjourned.