ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 0905

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order. We're meeting this morning at the request of Ms. Girard-Bujold, who had tabled a motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, we are studying the environmental effects of certain activities of the Department of National Defence on lac Saint- Pierre.

I have the pleasure of welcoming our witnesses who represent the Groupe d'actions des riverains and officials representing the departments of National Defence and the Environment.

[English]

We have as witnesses, Mr. Hunter, Monsieur Lagacé, Madame Bérard, Monsieur Giroul, Mr. Jarry, and Monsieur Brouillard.

[Translation]

As usual, we will invite our witnesses to speak for a maximum of 10 to 15 minutes so that the committee members have the time to ask questions.

Who will speak on behalf of your delegation? If there will be two speakers, I would appreciate it if they would share the allocated time.

Mr. Giroul, you have the floor.

Mr. Philippe Giroul (Secretary, Groupe d'actions des riverains): Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to appear before you, subsequent to the representations that we made to certain members of Parliament.

The documents that we have presented to you include the transcript of a CBC program prepared by Yves Bernard; our organization's comments on this program; the minutes of the meeting of March 26, 1999, between GAR and André Lagacé; an excerpt from the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; a yellow information folder; the text of a petition bearing 3,000 signatures and the government's response; a colour map of Lake Saint-Pierre showing the CYR 606 area and, on land, the PETE site; a marine chart of Lake Saint-Pierre, copy of which has been provided for your information; and the GAR's brief entitled Au-delà de la pointe de l'iceberg [Below the Tip of the Iceberg], which we presented to the BAPE at Yamaniche, last year.

Our presentation has four parts: identifying the problem and its history; actions by citizens; the present situation and unanswered questions; and our conclusions and proposed solutions.

I shall first deal with the history. Set up 47 years ago on Moras Island in Nicolet Sud, the PETE tests weapons and ammunitions of all types for DND, the American army, NATO and Canadian arms manufacturers such as Technologies industrielles SNC. When the PETE was first set up, in a populated area, no environmental impact assessments were required. At that time, authorizations to carry out polluting activities were certainly not hard to come by.

Since then, activities have expanded to keep pace with developments in weapons manufacturing, to the point where the testing of large-calibre ammunition causes increasing environmental damage. Noise and shock waves are felt all around Lake Saint- Pierre. Unaware of all that was happening on Île Moras, local residents kept quiet until, in 1991, they woke up and asked Mr. Vincent, the MP for Trois-Rivières at the time and later federal Environment Minister, to intervene with the government and halt this increasingly damaging testing.

Minister Bill McKinight's laconic reason for refusing was that moving the PETE would be difficult since Nicolet was the ideal location for it. In 1992, however, Minister Marcel Masse had a budget of over $2 million adopted for a silencer, in the hope of reducing the increasingly disturbing noise. In 1992, that $2 million could have been used to move the PETE a long way from populated areas. The first problem has to do with sound: the noise and shock waves. Although the silencer was installed in 1995, noisy testing has continued unabated, since the silencer can be used in only 40% of testing. Testing of large calibre ammunition from 40- millimetre mortars to 155-meter guns, done without the silencer, is the noisiest and affects riverfront property owners. The shock waves that accompany the explosions continue. Local residents' peace is still disturbed, and property damage continues with impunity.

• 0910

The second problem is the pollution of the land and water sites. In fact, it would seem that 15% of ammunition tested is not recovered. This ammunition can be carried anywhere by the spring ice breakup, a fact that has already caused one death in Nicolet, in 1982. Mr. McCauley, Senior Advisor to the former Minister of National Defence Mr. Collenette stated that:

In order to clean up the lake bottom, responsible authorities are studying existing methods to locate and recover missiles shot in the lake.

He also said:

That the Department of National Defence had subcontracted a number of studies over the years in order to check whether its testing was damaging to the environment. The results of these studies had been negative or inconclusive.

The exact result of these studies has never been published, and we do not believe that they addressed damage to local residents.

The third problem is moral and economic. The Canadian Army purchases $200 million's worth of ammunition each year for its own use. As well, sales of Canadian weapons to Third World countries rose from $60 million in 1991 to $260 million in 1992; they were only somewhat less in 1993, approximately $240 million. These sales include Canadian army surpluses. If Canada claims to be a peaceful country, it should systematically discourage this type of exports.

I shall now deal with actions by local residents: local residents have called on politicians; written to five ministers of National Defence and five ministers of Environment; written letters to editors; tabled a petition with 3,000 signatures; received newspaper, television and radio coverage; drafted an information folder; informed the municipal councils of seven shoreline municipalities; presented a plan for action and ecological rehabilitation (PARE) to the Lake Saint-Pierre ZIP. This is a summary of the work carried out by local citizens in the last six or seven years.

What results have been achieved? Almost all the responses by ministers and their assistants have been uniformly disappointing, giving their blessing to the PETE activities. Only Mr. Jacques Brassard, Quebec Environment Minister, responded positively to the GAR in 1996. The document that we tabled contains the various elements of his response.

In 1997, the Quebec Department of the Environment proposed that the PETE use the noise standards applicable to quarries as a basis for assessing the noise of ammunition testing in industrial and agricultural areas. In practice, the use of these standards has prolonged the period of environmental damage. These standards do not take into account the air disturbance produced by the mouths of guns or the shock waves produced in the areas where the shells land.

In 1998, Mr. Bégin, Quebec Minister of the Environment, responded to our request for an investigation by suggesting that we continue to wait for the situation to improve. One year later, after many promises from the PETE, the situation has hardly changed at all.

In 1998, we participated in hearings held by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement concerning dredging at the Sorel docks. We submitted a brief entitled Au-delà de la pointe de l'iceberg. At that time, the GAR disclosure of the facts surprised all the stakeholders, who had been unaware of the full extent of the environmental damage caused by the PETE activities.

We continued our research on this problem by carefully studying the very thorough reports by Brian Emmett, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who had the insight to criticize DND because it had still not taken the necessary steps to achieve its environmental objectives. However, in December 1997, DND unveiled a sustainable development strategy that eloquently voiced concern for environmental management and protection. However, Nicolet was glaringly absent among the sites designated in this strategy.

• 0915

Similarly, reports by Denis Desautels, Auditor General of Canada, have identified numerous shortcomings in DND's acquisition plans, including overstocking of outdated material.

In 1998, we met with Mr. Lagacé, who had been delegated by Mr. Largueux to meet with us. At that meeting, Mr. Lagacé announced an agreement with Environment Canada to assess the nature of the sediment in the south part of Lake Saint-Pierre. He also announced that activities at Nicolet had been reorganized; however, weapons qualification testing was to continue. Although this meeting was productive, we feel that there is still much to be done. Although the amount of firing has been reduced because some of the volume has been transferred to Val-Bélair, the firing that creates the most noise and shock waves and which, in addition, ends up in the lake, still continues.

We do not question the goodwill of PETE managers and technocrats. They carry out studies, gather documentation, conduct independent listening station tests, record data, develop software, plan stop butts and develop plans. However, they keep firing into Lake Saint-Pierre and making our homes vibrate.

The Department of National Defence in conjunction with Environment Canada has developed a draft agreement to study the quality of the sediments in the south part of Lake Saint-Pierre. We have been promised an environmental plan, to be developed in partnership with the MEQ and TI-SNC, by the end of May 1999. Does this environmental plan not duplicate DND's sustainable development strategy, referred to above?

As Mr. Lagacé acknowledged in the summary memorandum dated April 22, 1999 to members of Parliament Bertrand, Laurin and Rocheleau,: "the preservation of this area's ecosystem is directly related to limiting DND's operations at this site". If our understanding of this statement is correct, the firing of shells is taking precedence over protecting the environment.

The many questions a systematic investigation might raise include the following, noted in the minutes of the March 26, 1999 meeting. What proportion of PQT is being carried out for commercial clients of TI-SNC other than National Defence? Who are those clients and what quantities of ammunitions sales are authorized by PWGSC? Why is TI-SNC ignored in Quebec legislation requiring authorization for industrial activities that damage the environment? When can we consult the contract between DND and TI- SNC, that is now being investigated by the Office of the Information Commissioner? The minutes of the March 26 meeting and the postscript raise many other questions.

In conclusion, we are dealing with objectives that are diametrically opposed, if not irreconcilable. On the one hand, DND and its partner TI-SNC are, for all practical purposes, producing weapons that pollute Lake Saint-Pierre and cause destruction of the local environment and preclude all access to the area.

On the other hand, our group and a number of supporters wish to protect the environment and sustainable development. After a great deal of evasiveness on the part of those whom we have contacted since 1991, we hope that today's approach to the political decision-makers on the standing committee will be productive. I shall ask my colleague, Mr. Brouillard, to explain our proposals to the standing committee. Thank you.

Mr. André Brouillard (Communications Officer, Groupe d'actions des riverains): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, allow us to present the following phased-in solutions.

We have to solve the problems of noise pollution and the discharge of contaminants into Lake Saint-Pierre by stopping all PQT that does not use a silencer, particularly the discharge of live shells, which constitute a potential danger to the public.

• 0920

We recommend that the DND-TI-SNC contract, which authorizes a private business to use a public asset, Lake Saint-Pierre, for commercial activities, be cancelled.

It may be necessary to compensate TI-SNC or require it to carry out its testing elsewhere; in any case, it already carries out some of its tests at CFB Petawawa and CFB Gagetown.

Efforts should be continued for DND-EC co-operation to restore the land and water areas.

We recommend that the PETE be turned into a national park, thus making this aspect of Lake Saint-Pierre's heritage accessible to the public and creating enough jobs to largely offset possible job losses. We have not examined this proposal in detail, but the department responsible for parks could see to this.

We wish to emphasize that Lake Saint-Pierre has been designated as a protected RAMSAR site by UNESCO. We fear that the PETE activities violate the status of this protected site. We have also given the clerk, Mr. Knowles, a marine map of Lake Saint- Pierre. Unfortunately, the colour map that we gave you has not been produced to scale. It will clearly show zone CYR 606, which represents approximately 40% of Lake Saint-Pierre.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for your attention. We are ready to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brouillard.

[English]

Mr. Gordon G. Hunter (Director General, Equipment Program Services, Department of National Defence): Mr. Chairman, thank you.

My name is Gordon Hunter. I'm the director general of equipment program services at the Department of National Defence. My responsibilities at National Defence include, amongst other activities, overseeing the ammunition program for the department.

Supporting me in this activity is Mr. André Lagacé, who is the director of the ammunition program, and he will be speaking to you later this morning about the specific environmental activities that we have undertaken in the past few years to address the concerns that have been expressed by Mr. Giroul.

Also accompanying me this morning is Mr. Tony Downs. He's the director general of environment at our department, and if there are questions later on of a general nature, Mr. Downs will be available to respond.

I have personally been responsible since 1992, the past seven years, for the PETE site at Nicolet. At Nicolet we have a munition experimental test centre, which has historically been known as PETE or the proof experimental test establishment. At this location the Department of National Defence tests and evaluates ammunition to ensure that it complies with the performance requirements of the Canadian Forces. This is accomplished by taking a small sample of every production lot of ammunition manufactured and test firing it at this site. This general activity is referred to as contract compliance testing.

The test firing of samples from production lots of ammunition is a practice that is followed by all of our NATO allies. Test firing samples is the only accepted and internationally recognized method of obtaining confidence that the ammunition is safe and suitable for its intended role.

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting, but do you have a copy of your text?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I'm not following the text exactly, Mr. Chairman. I've provided a copy of my speaking notes to the interpreter.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gordon Hunter: There are five locations on the shoreline of Lac Saint-Pierre from which ammunition is test fired. The firing range over the surface of Lac Saint-Pierre is an area of approximately 23 kilometres in length and six and a half kilometres wide. The test range is marked with an official notice to mariners indicating that it's a danger area for ships and boats, and notification is also provided to air traffic controllers to restrict the area for flying when test firing is underway. The Department of National Defence does ensure that people don't venture into this area by observing and patrolling the test range area.

• 0925

Conventional ammunition in calibres from 25 millimetres to 155 millimetres is tested at the facility. We've been carrying out testing in this location since 1952, for 47 years. The site was initially selected as it was strategically located close to several munitions factories. The site has proved to be ideal for observing the flight of ammunition or of projectiles for long flight paths, and it's also been ideal for testing naval proximity fuses over water. The fact the projectiles fly over water means a very long, flat surface, and we can track the ammunition performance. The location remains strategic today, as it continues to be close to our ammunition manufacturing facilities, and of course that reduced dramatically our transportation costs.

We've changed our activities dramatically at Nicolet over the past ten years. In the early nineties we had in excess of 160 employees at the Nicolet site. Today our staff at Nicolet totals approximately 40. Part of the reduction in personnel, in fact as mentioned by Mr. Giroul, was achieved by transferring the engineering and test work, approximately 50% of our workload, from Nicolet up to Val-Bélair, which is next to Valcartier-Québec City.

The above actions, combined with a reduction in the amount of ammunition being purchased by 25% over the past seven years, have led to a significant reduction in test firing at this site. Indeed, our annual firing rate in the early nineties was 10,000 to 12,000 rounds per year, and in the past four or five years that has been reduced to 5,000 or 6,000 rounds. We expect it to continually reduce as we go into the future, as we move additional workload up to Val-Bélair. Current operating costs for our Nicolet site are approximately $5 million a year. That includes salaries and maintenance costs of the location.

I would now like to ask Mr. Lagacé to review for you the specific environmental initiatives we've undertaken.

[Translation]

Mr. André Lagacé (Director, Ammunition Programs Management, Department of National Defence): I shall continue in French. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the department has recognized the importance of determining the environmental impacts related to the Nicolet operations and to dealing with this. Since then, a number of concrete steps have been taken. We have focussed especially on noise impact and the residues in aquatic habitats.

In 1991-92, we had a thorough study carried out to measure the environmental impact of our activities on the ambient sound in the neighbouring communities and on the water quality. In keeping with the departmental priorities, this study focussed primarily on the noise, on-site readings and social studies, and it involved collating the copious data available on the water quality.

The study reached four main conclusions. The first is that the department's activities do not have a greater impact on the lake's biophysical environment than other activities in the area. The second is that the impact of our activities on the water quality would appear to be negligible. The third conclusion is that an impact assessment on the sediment quality is complex and would require more detailed study. I shall deal with this in greater detail when I discuss the study that we will carry out with Environment Canada. The final conclusion is that noise mitigation measures can and must be implemented to reduce the impact of the firing.

• 0930

Subsequent to this study, the department introduced a silencer for large calibre shells. It also introduced portable sound level meters to monitor noise in the region. Though there are no federal or provincial standards that regulate the noise caused by ammunition testing, there were and still are guidelines that can be applied.

It is obvious that in all cases, noise tolerance is subjective. Even when our results are within the standards, some residents feel inconvenienced. We have developed a noise management policy in conjunction with our partners in the Quebec Department of the Environment and Wildlife, and this results in an automatic cessation of firing when we reach a certain limit.

There are two kinds of missiles fired during testing. For the most part, they are inert missiles containing only beeswax and steel. The others, which contain energetic materials, explode on impact and are destroyed. We do not, under any circumstances, use heavy metals as passive loads. We have built stop butts and butt plates for medium and large calibre missiles so as to recover the projectiles before they hit the water during certain types of testing. We have a special vessel used to recover projectiles under certain conditions.

We are taking even more significant measures with our partners as part of an environmental management program in order to limit the impact of our operations. Our first commitment, in keeping with the Department's Green Plan, is to limit noise impacts.

We are currently installing sound level meters that will allow us, in real time, to measure ambient noise at designated locations. We are also developing sound level prediction techniques from compiled data, based on ambient noise and anticipated conditions, namely humidity, wind, temperature and the type of firing.

The field of industrial noise is a complex one. And we are working closely with the Quebec Environment and Wildlife Department and other specialists in this sector, so as to better understand this kind of noise and limit its effects on residents.

An extensive, computerized inventory on shelling and the related noise has been created. In the future, a quarterly report will be submitted to the Quebec Environment and Wildlife Department. We are currently refining our silencer, so that we will be able to use it for a larger number of firings. This will mean a major increase in the number of projectiles fired in the silencer.

Currently, our firing range controller ensures that testing is conducted in such a way as to reduce impacts on the local residents, by limiting testing outside normal working hours. There is never any testing done on weekends or holidays, and we have a telephone line that local residents may use to obtain daily information on activities at our test site.

As for the impact on the surrounding ecosystem, Environment Canada and our department have signed an agreement which will enable us to assess the effect of our operations on the ecosystem, to formulate recommendations and, finally, to reach conclusions as to whether restoration work might be appropriate.

• 0935

This study will, for the first time, provide scientific data on sediment quality and on the effect of the shelling on stirring up sediment. My colleagues from Environment Canada will give you more information on this study.

Ms. Marie-France Bérard (Regional Director (Quebec Region), Environment Protection Branch, Environment Canada): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You have in your hands a copy of my presentation. I will not present all the acetates that were prepared because a fair amount of the information they contain has already been given to you in the preceding presentations.

I would like to speak to you briefly this morning about the environmental study on the sediment quality in the Southern Portion of Lake Saint-Pierre used by the Nicolet Munition Experiment Test Centre. It is being conducted under a co-operation agreement between Environment Canada and the Department of National Defence.

The main goal of this study is to characterize sediments in the firing range in order to, first, assess sediment contamination; second, estimate the impact of shelling; third, make recommendations on how the sector should be used; and finally, determine whether restoration work would be appropriate.

The Canadian government needs an objective study to evaluate the scope of the site's environmental mortgage and assess the impact of current industrial activities. My department must ensure that any decisions made take into account the concerns of our partners. Whether we are talking about the Groupe d'actions des riverains, the Groupe de la zone d'intervention prioritaire (ZIP), the Defence Department or the Environment and Wildlife Department, we have to take into account the concerns of the partners when making decisions about the site's future.

In the agreement, we agreed on the sediment characterization. We must determine the chemical contamination, assess sediment toxicity, as well as describe and measure the biodiversity of organisms living in the sediments.

As you can guess, the sampling and the protocol are subject to many constraints. There are safety considerations. Unexploded shells are still present, and firing still goes on. So we have to be careful. We have to work with National Defence to ensure that the sampling is done safely.

There is another constraint, the density of vegetation in the reed-beds, which we want to protect. So it is difficult to move through the beds. The water level is not very high along the shore. And finally, the study area is extremely large, 23 kilometres by seven kilometres. That's a very large area.

In the protocol, the Defence department made a commitment to establish the background of firing range activities to guide characterization; provide information about energetic materials; provide mine clearance expertise to secure sampling sites; help develop a sampling strategy and monitor work in the field; interpret and give advice on data and results regarding energetic materials; review reports and help formulate recommendations; and pay for most of the work.

In turn, Environment Canada has made a commitment to coordinate scientific work; provide expertise in sediment characterization, that is to say, everything that has to do with contamination, toxicity and biodiversity; develop a sampling strategy and methods; monitor sampling work; follow up laboratory analyses; interpret data; notify the Quebec government and interested groups of progress made in the study; as well as draft reports and make recommendations.

• 0940

I will conclude by showing you the study schedule. We are currently planning the field work. Preliminary sampling will be done from July to March 1999, and the more exhaustive sampling will be done between April and December of the year 2000. A preliminary report will be drafted by September 2001, and the final report will be tabled in March 2002.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Bérard. Are there any other comments? No?

I have a list here of people who would like to ask questions. They are Ms. Girard-Bujold, Mr. Lincoln, Mrs. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Charbonneau.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee for moving so quickly and immediately inviting the members of the Groupe d'actions des riverains to appear before us, as well as the various other stakeholders. Thank you very much. The environment is a very important concern in our region, as is everything relating to the sites that National Defence has used over the years. Ever since the department chose sites to carry out such operations, it has never attached any importance to environmental monitoring for the future.

I see that the members of the Groupe d'actions des riverains du lac Saint-Pierre were right. I met with Mr. Lagacé two weeks ago, for he was kind enough to meet with me, along with our Defence critic, Mr. Laurin. I see that what they said was true, because the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Environment have decided to take action.

I hope that this is not going to be too little, too late. The important thing is the pollution that is now within our rivers. If we look beyond what the people from Defence and Environment are telling me, we see that things have been done that have contaminated and polluted the environment in our region. I'm talking about noise pollution and water pollution.

As Mr. Giroul was saying, National Defence decided 50 years ago to carry out testing over water, and isn't it time now for National Defence to think about finding some other place for its experiments? Will there be some studies done on this? As you say, there is a possibility of you going to Val-Bélair, in Quebec. Have you thought of creating a park, as the witness was requesting, and restoring the site as quickly as possible? I don't think the Department of the Environment is moving fast enough. They will have to come to some conclusions more quickly. This has gone on too long. I would like the officials from Environment and National Defence to respond, and then I have some more questions.

My friend, Mr. Rocheleau, who is more closely involved, will also have some questions for you. Thank you.

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: As for the amount of time, under normal conditions it takes two years to characterize sediments, develop recommendations and restore the site, if necessary. We have to first carry out preliminary sampling, and this exercise has to be done in September, when biodiversity is at its peak. We can only carry out this type of sampling during one single period of the year.

We must carry out preliminary sampling so that the following year, we can achieve the most representative results possible. So under normal conditions, it takes two years. In this case, safety is very, very important. So we think that three years is still very ambitious.

I agree with you that scenarios for the future will have to be prepared and negotiated within the next two or three years.

• 0945

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You say that you agree with me, but there are things to be done now. As Mr. Lagacé was telling us, the firing is still going on. I didn't know this, but at this site, large shells are not the only ones being fired; small ones are being fired as well. Isn't that what you said, Mr. Giroul? You said that most of them are inert, containing only beeswax, but there are some live shells being used. They do not all explode, and you don't find them all. You say that you have a boat, you have this and that, but shells have been falling into the river for 50 years now. As well, there was a death. Things have happened.

I would like the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Environment to show that they have the will to do something today. They should stop postponing everything. I would like them to tell us, today, what they are going to do today, for later. The lady was saying it took three years to carry out a study. I would like you to show that you are determined to change course.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Thank you for the question.

With regard to the long-term plans for PETE at Nicolet, we have been working toward developing an environmental management program there to mitigate the problems. You're quite right, our focus has not been on moving that site, although we've been moving a great deal of the workload. We've moved about half of our workload to Val-Bélair, as we mentioned.

We have procured the muffler, we have noise-monitoring systems, we have a boat to recover unexploded ordnance that we fire in the lake, and we are actively working with Environment Canada to characterize the basis of Lac Saint-Pierre.

If there are indications from that study that say we are causing environmental damage that we have no way of mitigating, you can be sure that we would be looking at alternatives. But at the present time, from the studies done in the past and from the monitoring and the environmental program we've implemented, we believe we are being extremely responsible environmental stewards, if you will. We are working as cooperatively as we can with the local residents. We're very sensitive to the local residents. When our firing causes noise above certain levels, we stop firing. We schedule it at different times when the environmental or climactic conditions are favourable to testing. I believe we have a good plan.

So I appreciate your concerns, and we certainly made note of them. But that's where we're at at the moment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mrs. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Herron and Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Girard-Bujold for bringing this problem to our attention. This is a very important matter for our committee, which after all, is the environment and sustainable development committee.

I wanted to wait until I had heard both sides before I took a position, but Mr. Giroul, Mr. Brouillard, I must tell you that I'm completely on your side. I sympathize with you greatly, particularly after I heard the remarks from the people from National Defence.

[English]

I'm really amazed at what I heard today. After all, we are the country that just signed a landmine treaty and led in trying to demine countries in the world. We have been praising ourselves all over the place for having done this, and rightly so. What I've heard today shocks me like heck.

With all due respect, Mr. Hunter, in all of your testimony not once did the word “people” come into play. It was all DND, the shells, the proximity of the site, what you do there, and the boat that stops people from coming into the danger zone. What about the people who live there? If they don't want your site, if they don't want your shells, don't they have a say? I find what I've heard today just appalling.

• 0950

I just picked out some of the comments you've made. You said that our test-firing patterns are the same as NATO's. Frankly, I don't think people care that they're the same as NATO's.

We inventoried the lakes in Quebec during the time I was involved in politics there. There are hundreds of millions of lakes in Quebec, and to choose Lac Saint-Pierre, one of the jewels of the environment with a wonderful ecosystem—and I've been there many times—to send shells, it seems amazing to me that this is the only place where we can do it.

Because we've been doing it since 1952 means nothing. We used to use DDT in 1952. In 1952 we used to do all kinds of things about which we didn't have any notion that they were dangerous or inimical to the environment. But in 1999 we're trying to be different from what we used to be in 1952, because the world has evolved. We used to use a lot of landmines in 1952, and now we're trying to ban them.

What we're saying is that you have reduced from 10,000 to 12,000 rounds to 5,000 to 6,000 rounds. That's 6,000 rounds in a place occupied by people, in a place where there are fish, and in an ecosystem that is protected by UNESCO. I find the whole thing really difficult to absorb.

Environment Canada is going to carry out a study and report in 2002. In another three years we'll get a report, and then we'll say we characterized the sites and we found out that the water is fine and that everything is okay, just as we found out there that the operations are no worse than the other operations. I wonder if we've asked the people who live there day in and day out.

I noticed in the minutes of a meeting, which I trust are correct, that in one day 64 shells were fired and 61 were recovered. When they asked Mr. Jean-Pierre Gagnon what happened to the three remaining shells, he said that DND had never promised that all the shells would be recovered. Then he himself admitted that there was a failure to provide quarterly reports about how many shells were unexploded, and one person got killed there some time ago. That's completely amazing and unacceptable.

I'm not going to ask any questions, because I've made up my mind. I think the only solution is for DND to find another site. Quebec is a huge place. So is every other province. Let's find another site and go and explode our shells somewhere else, because I don't think it should be there. It shouldn't be at Lac Saint-Pierre or Lac St-Louis.

I should mention to you that I represent eight cities around a lake. The hunters used to fire at all the ducks moving and not moving, and people used to get shells in their homes, until we raised such a ruckus that now every municipality—not waiting for all the other governments—has passed bylaws to stop firing shells within five kilometres. The hunters went to the courts and they lost. They could also say that in 1952 we used to fire shells and in 1965 we used to fire shells. But now they can't. They can't within five kilometres, because people have insisted that they want to live there in peace. They don't want noise, they don't want environmental pollution, they don't want guns, and they don't want shells.

Now you're firing huge shells. I'm sorry, all I want to say is that I think DND should move the thing somewhere else, find another lake, shoot as many shells as they want, and leave people alone.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): As always, it's very difficult to follow Mr. Lincoln.

I was wondering if I could hear a little bit more about the effects on the property of the local residents. How are your homes and property affected?

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Giroul: About one month ago, we called in someone from the PETE to look at some windows that had been rattled loose. We live three or four kilometres from there, and the shock waves rattle the houses, windows and knick-knacks, move picture frames and so on. Three windows in my house were rattled loose. They came to see me and I'm waiting for their report. How will they be able to prove that the firing is the cause? I don't know. No study has been done so far following the complaints of the other residents. We have heard about various things, and our next step will be to conduct a study of people in the entire region to gather their opinions on this matter.

• 0955

A few moments ago, someone said that the testing was only done between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. When I was teaching, I wasn't at home regularly, and I didn't hear the explosions. But when I came home, I would see that the picture frames had moved. How did that happen? Over the past two years, I have been at home regularly, and when I hear the booms, I really see the results. That's what I can tell you about the residents right now.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No one has talked about the health effects on the residents because of these shock waves. I've been around people who have fired guns, and every time you have this huge noise, your body flinches.

I also had the experience of living in my mother-in-law's cottage the summer I was expecting my first child, and there were a lot of thunderstorms in that area down in Lake St. Clair, almost every night. And every time there was a thunderstorm, I could feel my body clinching and I don't think it was a very good thing for the baby to have to suffer those kinds of winces that your body automatically goes through. I wonder about the effects on young children when they have to be subjected to these noises and things like that.

Just because it's during working hours, those are still living hours for people in the community. And so I'm wondering what studies have been conducted, not only on the property effects, but on the health effects of both the noise pollution and the effect of the shock waves on the system and how it's affecting the development of young children. Has anything like that been done in the area? If your windows are rattling, the human beings are rattling as well.

[Translation]

Mr. André Brouillard: Madam, unfortunately no study has been done on the impact of those explosions on human beings. As Mr. Lincoln was saying, when they talk about the tests that have been done, they don't often talk about the effects on human beings. We would have liked a serious study to have been conducted.

When Mr. Giroul and I travelled around the area to make people aware of the problem, parents told us that their three and four- years old were being woken up in the afternoon by the noise of the guns. I don't think that's normal. Studies have been done on the fauna and all kinds of other things, but not on the people. That's what we find somewhat odd.

Mr. Philippe Giroul: I would like to add that a new hotel was built opposite from the test establishment in 1989. One day, Ms. Céline Dion was staying there, and she was woken at 9 a.m. The manager immediately called the base and asked that they stop the explosions. Thanks to Ms. Dion, we didn't hear a thing for one week. But we are not Ms. Dion.

Two years ago, a residence opposite my own, about 200 metres away, was turned into a convalescence home. The residents, who usually stay for one or two weeks, also complained.

As Mr. Lagacé was saying, our point of view is very subjective, and I agree with him.

I was in Europe during the Second World War, and I heard guns firing over my head. Personally, that noise disturbs me tremendously. I am making a subjective judgment, and I acknowledge that. But we must consider all the effects the firing can have on human beings. Mr. Brouillard was telling me the other day that when the firing starts, he doesn't hear the explosions because his dog starts to bark before they hear them.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Herron, Mr. Rocheleau and Mr. Laliberte.

• 1000

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by asking a technical question about the kind of weaponry or bombs that are being tested. Are they advanced weapons, a new technological generation, or are they ordinary shells that have been around for decades?

Mr. André Lagacé: They are medium and large calibre conventional shells. Please let me correct one comment that I made earlier. Small calibre weapons are tested inside.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So they are weapons that have been around for decades?

Mr. André Lagacé: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So, it's not that this testing is advancing science particularly far. All in all, this is routine testing. You test the materials from the factory a few kilometres away.

Mr. André Lagacé: Yes, the testing is for quality control purposes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that we've had this discussion today, and I thank our colleague who took the initiative. On November the 11th, there was an article in Le Devoir by Mr. Francoeur which got a lot of people's attention. It contained statements such as this one:

Environment Canada managers in Quebec find it environmentally “unacceptable” to use 40% of the surface area of Lac Saint-Pierre as a firing range for National Defence [...]

Mr. Michel Lamontagne, who is in charge of conservation within this department in Quebec, made the following remarks:

We cannot consider what's going on there to be acceptable, from Environment Canada's point of view.

Ms. Breda Nadon, who is handling this issue within Environment Canada, supports Mr. Lamontagne's assessment. Mr. Francoeur drew people's attention to the issue and got the ball moving.

On the next day, November 12, I sent a note to our Minister of the Environment to get some information about this matter. On April 28, I received an answer outlining the features of the program that Ms. Bérard just announced, namely the work that both departments will be doing jointly.

I would like to congratulate the people from the GAR for what they have done and I admire their patience: seven ministers of the Environment, seven ministers of Defence, innumerable letters, etc. Besides, as a member of Parliament, I am personally aware of the challenge that they are facing; I wrote a letter in November and I only got an answer on April 28, despite the fact that I am a government party.

There are probably many obscure things in this file. I am glad to know that the Department of National Defence will be carrying out a joint study with the Department of the Environment. I would like to know how much it will cost each department.

This study should finally allow us to measure certain factors. I hope that it will also measure the impact on the population and different species, and that it will not just merely measure the physical aspects such as noise, water quality, sedimentation, etc.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this study should consider the possibility of a moratorium on the tests, they should be paused or stopped. The tests began in 1952, in a different context, five or six years after the end of the Second World War. We have come a long way since then. At the end of the study, we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the centre, perhaps right at the time when the results of the study will be coming out. I think it is ridiculous to do this kind of testing within that current context.

You personally told us that the arms being tested are not technologically new, that they are routine weapons. We have known them for decades. And we know how efficient they are.

• 1005

You don't impress me at all by mentioning NATO. We can all see what their score is right now. It is not brilliant, even if much more sophisticated arms are being used.

Don't raise NATO as an argument, don't tell us that we have obligations to NATO, etc. This kind of thing does not impress me at all. Those arms are not at all essential for Canadian defence or security. There is a connection between a company and a testing ground, which is basically a basin or a part of a lake. The context is completely different.

It is all very nice to carry out studies, but what we really need is a moratorium. Those tests must be stopped. There is no sense in using a lake, in a zone with an increasing population. It is no longer the same kind of territory that it was 50 years ago. This zone also has some important wetlands and some UNESCO programs have earmarked it for special protection. Therefore, it is time for the Department of Defence to stop shooting. That is my opinion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Gilmour, please.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hunter, DND will own the land adjacent to the river. Who owns the lake bed? Is it DND or the Province of Quebec?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I'm not sure about the answer to that question. I know we have an agreement with the Province of Quebec. Are you familiar, Tony?

Mr. Tony Downs (Director General, Environment, Department of National Defence): The province owns the lake bed.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: The province does. The reason for my question is that CF METR, which is Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range, commonly called the torpedo test range, is in my riding in the Gulf of Georgia, and because the province of B.C. owns the seabed, which it took a court challenge to establish, there's now a friendlier attitude from DND. I would hope that perhaps with the Province of Quebec you might be able to use some leverage to encourage DND to have a little friendlier attitude towards the residents.

Switching gears a bit, can you tell me what is the estimate of the unexploded shells out in the water?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Bérard, could you answer Mr. Charbonneau's question?

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: Since my colleague, Mr. Jarry, knows all the figures by heart, I will ask him to answer you.

Mr. Vincent Jarry (Chief, Intervention and Restoration Section, Environment Protection Branch, Environment Canada): We expect that this three-year study should cost between $500,000 and $600,000. The Department of National Defence will pay the lion's share, probably 90%. Our department will contribute its expertise, while the Department of National Defence will pay for hiring consultants.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jarry.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Hunter: In response to your question on the unexploded ordnance this year, from the first of January to the end of March we had one. During 1998 we had six. In 1997 we had 30, in 1996 we had 61, and in 1995 we had seven. So it's in that range.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What is the procedure when there is an unexploded shell?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: We look for it through triangulation. We observe where it fell. We have a scientific method to locate it. The reason for not locating the occasional one is the lake bed or, in the case of the wintertime, melting through the ice. It's very rare in the wintertime that we don't find one, but in the summertime with the lake bed there have been occasions where we've been unable to locate them.

When we do locate them, we explode them in their location.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I have one question.

The Chairman: Yes.

• 1010

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Technology has changed significantly in 50 years. At what point in those 50 years did you start looking for the shells? Surely in 1952 they weren't triangulating and exploding shells, so at what point in those 50 years did you start looking for the shells? And the point before that, clearly, is an unknown.

Mr. Gordon Hunter: You're right. It's primarily the last decade where we have been able to locate and properly deal with the shells. We do have an estimate—and it is an estimate—of 3,700 from 1952 to 1984.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Giroul, could you tell us whether you agree with the figures that Mr. Hunter has just given? In your brief, you indicated that 15% of the test material was not recovered.

Mr. Philippe Giroul: We used the figure that was in their own reports. One would need to know whether that non-recovered material consisted of detonating shells or other material. It has not been possible to ascertain that, and I am not an expert in that area.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmour. Mr. Herron, please.

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

My first question is regarding the decision to do this in a wetland or lake environment versus doing it on land. My initial impression is that it would be easier to recover shells if we were using a land-based site versus a wetlands-based facility. Would there be a possibility of doing similar testing on a land-based site?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Yes, and some other nations do compliance testing over land. We are, and we have been, offloading or moving our workload substantially to Val-Bélair. We also use Gagetown and we use Petawawa test ranges frequently.

I would like to stress that we are continuing to actively attempt to move the workload away from this site when it's practical to do so and when there's capacity in other ranges. These ranges are not available to us all the time. They're used for practice and training, but when there are time slots available, we tend to take advantage of them.

Mr. John Herron: I know that folks in my nearby area of Gagetown sometimes get a little shocked by the process on occasion. One of the issues this comes down to is that in the 1950s, when we first started doing it there, perhaps given the population base and how many people lived in the area then, it may have been a reasonable decision. Perhaps in 1999, given the critical mass of persons who live nearby.... Approximately,

[Translation]

according to what I have heard, 50,000 people live in Trois- Rivières and 91% live in that region.

[English]

Maybe with that population base we've reached a state where it's necessary to look at a more sparsely populated region.

I know the area a little bit from the Tracy and Sorel area, from one end of the lake, and I have the intention of spending a few weeks in Trois-Rivières studying French this summer, so I may have a chance to see this first-hand. I would think that in 1999 it's time to move on. In 1950 it might have been the right thing to do.

My comment in regard to the decibel readings, in terms of being out of earshot in the 1950s, is that we made that decision probably because of how sparsely populated it was. That criterion was probably used to some degree in 1950, but I would like to ask if it would still meet the same criterion from a decibel perspective and how many constituents would actually hear the shocking, the bombing in that regard compared to today?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: As Mr. Lagacé mentioned, there aren't really definitive and clear standards available for us to use, but there are generally accepted practices. We've met with the provincial environmental authorities, we deal with Environment Canada, and we've met with local groups of citizens. We have been continually, and we continue to be, below the noise levels that are generally accepted practices, and we monitor it closely. Whenever we get above it, we stop shooting. We've been responsible in that way, but I appreciate your question.

• 1015

Mr. John Herron: Who sets the level? You said “acceptable levels”. Who gets to do that?

Mr. André Lagacé: The ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune du Québec. The federal government doesn't have the rules. It doesn't have recommendations on noise applicable to us. So we're working with our partners from the department of the environment in Quebec to establish rules and regulations, and then we're monitoring them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Brouillard.

Mr. André Brouillard: We have been asked to be present for the tests that will be done by Technologies Industrielles SNC and the Quebec Environment Ministry on May 11, 12 and 14 so that new noise criteria can be set to replace those that have been used up to now; the old ones were based on those used for quarries. If changes are being planned to existing rules, it is a clear indication that they are inadequate.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lagacé.

Mr. André Lagacé: I just want to add that right now we're working with specialists from the Quebec government. We have installed some sound meters and we can now get information about the sound that's coming from our operation. So we're working very closely with them to establish rules and directives that we will be able to follow, and we're involving the local populations amongst the Groupe d'Action des riverains.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Rocheleau, Mr. Laliberte,

[English]

Mr. Casson, and the chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, please.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): I would like to begin as well, in my role as Member of Parliament for Trois-Rivières, which is the region directly affected by this problem, by congratulating the members of Groupe d'actions des riverains for their determination and tenacity over the last seven years. You have undertaken many initiatives, working more often in adversity than in co-operation, even when dealing with the local residents. Some people do not feel as strongly about this problem. It is certainly to your credit that the issue has been brought here, to the right place, to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, where your views will be listened to with attention and sympathy.

The problem stems, of course, from the Defence Department, but we must also look at the consequences and effects. We are grateful to my colleague, the Member for Jonquière, for her perseverance and for her efforts to make departmental officials aware of this situation. I believe that the file is making good progress.

I have two questions for the representatives from the Department of the Environment, Mr. Chairman. As you know, Lake Saint-Pierre was recognized in 1988 as a true RAMSAR biosphere world site, in which wetlands are to be protected through the Canadian Wildlife Service. How do you reconcile that recognition with the activities involved in operating the experimental test centre? Are those two roles compatible?

In September 1996, in response to a petition I tabled in June 1996 as a result of representations from the Groupe d'actions des riverains, the government informed me that the Canadian Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlimited Canada had stated that the centre's activity posed no threat to aquatic life. What significance does that statement have for you? What is your department's position on that response?

• 1020

The Chairman: Ms. Bérard.

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: To begin with, as you know, Environment Canada is made up of a number of parts. The Canadian Wildlife Service is part of Environment Canada. Since I am representing the Environmental Protection Branch here this morning, I cannot really speak on the Service's behalf. We do know, however, that this a waterfowl conservation area, and past studies have shown that the activities did not have a significant impact on waterfowl. I should add that Environment Canada as a whole is part of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. The department chairs the plan along with the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Wildlife. Naturally, the management committee of the St. Lawrence Action Plan is concerned about the National Defence activity on the site. Environment Canada is certainly aware of this impact issue, but I repeat that Environment Canada is not in a position to pass judgment on the types of activity going on at Lake Saint-Pierre. We do, however, need to ensure that the environmental impact is negligible. That is what the Canadian Wildlife Service gave its opinion on. In our study on sediment quality, we are focussing primarily on toxicity and biodiversity. We want to ensure that the impact is minimal.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: And the RAMSAR site?

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: You want to know if the activities—

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are compatible. Is it possible to have both at the same time?

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: Very well. I can say, with respect to both the RAMSAR site and the St. Lawrence Action Plan, that these activities are not necessarily compatible with use objectives and reclamation goals.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In the impact study that you are collaborating on, does the fact that the Canadian Wildlife Service has already taken a position take away your room to manoeuvre or do you have free rein?

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: Not at all. The environment is, after all, a broad mandate, and Environment Canada's role is to ensure that environmental impacts are acceptable and minimal at all levels.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, please, followed by Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I just want to highlight this presentation. A petition was brought forward to Parliament and a government response was submitted. The last line of the government's response really troubles me. It says that requirements set out in the petition have already been met through existing procedures.

The requirement being asked for in the petition is that Parliament ask government to stop all explosives testing. That requirement has not been met. There are 3,000 or so petitioners who have asked that all testing be stopped. The rationale here is that we've complied with industrial noise levels in an agricultural area.

The message is to stop testing in this area. You seem to say that transportation costs have to be taken into consideration. Well, that's an industrial cost-effective measure. You're complying with your supplier that you have to have a testing site. Compliance testing means that before you stockpile this ammunition, you want to test it to make sure they fire, to make sure they have the right bang for your buck, so to speak. You're trying to be practical about it.

This was practical in 1952. I don't know what the population was in 1952. It might have been a quiet secluded lake and very shallow for retrievals.

You have to look elsewhere. I think the message is loud and clear.

I'm new to this issue. I just opened these and listened to you humbly. But you're being told to stop firing.

• 1025

I've been in municipal politics for a number of years. We used to have firing ranges on the outskirts of town, on the other side of the garbage pit. When the subdivisions expanded into that area, we had to move the firing range. That's the way I view this. It's the municipal areas. The population of this country is expanding. You have to move your testing range somewhere else.

Is it because it's close to a railroad? Is it because it's close to a shipping lane? Is it because it's close to highways? You may have to look elsewhere. The message is here. Either the communities, the municipality, or the government will look elsewhere for you, but it would be very mature of you to start looking elsewhere and start making recommendations to the ministers.

It's going to be a political decision because there is going to be a high cost, I'm sure, for your budget allocation. For practical purposes, you have to live with your budget in the status quo. We don't fault you for that. But also have plan B, that if you do have to move, if the political...or if the residents in those areas deem you to move—and the petition certainly is the writing on the wall; it's a stamp in the Parliament of Canada that we do listen to our constituents in this country. The message is here. It's been sent. You have to start looking elsewhere.

Are you looking elsewhere, or is it time for you to start?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Thank you. The message has been very clear to us, as I'm sure you can appreciate. We have been actively working on moving work away from Lac Saint-Pierre. As we've already pointed out, we've moved more than half of our test firing out of there and reduced the shooting we do. We've installed what are referred to as stop butts to dramatically reduce the firing that goes into the lake, and we continue to try to focus on that.

I've already indicated that we will continue to aggressively look for alternatives to move our workload away from Lac Saint-Pierre—certain types of tests—when we can and when there are other facilities. We'll actively pursue that. We are going ahead with Environment Canada on the study to characterize the lake and we will ensure that the community is involved in our study. We've taken note of the concern expressed by the committee that the study should consider the impact on people, and we will undertake to look at how we can cover that concern as well.

To summarize, while we don't have a firm plan to cease our operation totally at that location, clearly we will be looking at our options in that regard.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I read this in one of these reports, so I'm not sure who should answer it—maybe both or all of you. The possibility of an unexploded shell floating out of this lake and going down river.... This lake is actually just a wide spot in the river, and the ice must move. Is there a possibility of that happening?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: It would be impossible to say no to that, as there is an incident from 1982, which Mr. Giroul described in his presentation. It's extremely unlikely today, as we have so much focus on recovering projectiles from the ice surface, much more than we did historically—much more—and it's extremely rare when we don't recover a projectile from the ice. If we don't, it's because it's gone through the ice to the bottom of the lake, not because it's melted into the lake to be captured and then floated away.

So with as much certainty as anyone can have today in today's environment, I'd say we've taken measures to prevent that, but it's impossible to say it could not happen under certain circumstances.

The Chairman: Mr. Giroul would like to answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Giroul: Mr. Chairman, there was a death in Nicolet in 1982. In the Radio-Canada report, Mr. Bernard interviewed a young boy who had picked up a shell about 30 kilometres from there. At Yamachiche, on the other side of the channel, seven or eight kilometres from the centre as the crow flies, residents have told us about seeing shells on the bottom of the lake. That means that the ice in the spring, under certain weather conditions, can cross the channel and end up on the other side. There is a beach near us. A shell could end up there some time.

• 1030

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Casson, do you have another question?

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes. If that's the case, then I would suggest that your 23-by-7-kilometre test area has to be expanded considerably.

But to go down this list, we have DND's and EC's participation. We're going to establish the background of the firing range, provide information, provide mine clearance, help develop, interpret and give advice, review reports, provide financial contribution; EC is going to coordinate, provide expertise, develop, monitor, follow up, interpret, notify, and draft reports. When is somebody going to start doing something, and who? When are we going to start actually cleaning up the bottom of this lake, and whose job is it going to be?

When we get two departments involved—we've seen this here before—everybody starts pointing at each other, and it looks like...I don't know what. But Joe Jordan's comment yesterday here on a different matter was that possibly the people who created the problem should be the ones who clean it up. Why Environment Canada would be held responsible at all, I'm not sure.

But is there a time? This is going to be a terribly dangerous thing to do. We have no idea how many are there; we don't have an estimate. It's going to be one heck of a job, but it has to be done or this area has to be off limits to anybody. In your estimation, when will something concrete happen to start taking these estimated 3,700 live shells out of this lake bed?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: As we do the study to characterize the lake, we will be developing from that an action plan in terms of the appropriate action to take.

Again, I've noted your question. We do not have a concrete plan in terms of beginning to restore the lake to its original condition. I've taken note that we should have that, and in the departmental environmental and sustainable developmental plan, it should be and it will be put forward by my division as an area to be considered for inclusion in that.

I think it's less dangerous than it is expensive. To pick up on a point, it's extremely expensive to recover all the shells when you are uncertain whether or not they're inert, because of the possibility that each shell could be a live shell. So it's characterizing them and determining the appropriate action to take, and that's clearly an expensive operation. But following the study we perform, I'm hoping we will have enough information to help us develop an appropriate plan.

Mr. Rick Casson: So we could surmise that once you get into this, every shell at the bottom of that lake would have to be treated as a live shell.

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Until proven otherwise, that's correct.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Brouillard.

Mr. André Brouillard: Mr. Chairman, recovery of shells has been going on for the past decade, but imagine the huge quantity of unexploded shells that might be lying on the bottom of the lake, given that, during the Cold War, testing was being done like never before, as the people from the department have said. All those shells pose a potential danger to those living around the lake. The shells can be carried by the ice. Since Lake Saint-Pierre is shallow, it freezes right to the bottom. You know what happens when a lake freezes to the bottom: the ice picks up whatever is on the bottom. When the water rises, the ice moves, then it drops the shells, which can be carried downstream. As proof of that, the department does helicopter checks all the way to Île d'Orléans. They told us so themselves, and you can ask them. We are not worried about the last ten years, but rather about the accumulated shells. We have been told there may have been a half million shells. No one has the exact figures because some documents were destroyed, we have been told, but the figure given is a half million. One suspects the real number is higher. That is our problem now. Are they going to take a chance on a child being killed? We all know there is a problem. If an accident happens and a child dies, people will have to say that they knew and that they did not take steps to resolve the problem. Do not forget that. That is all I wanted to say.

• 1035

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Giroul.

Mr. Philippe Giroul: I would like to point out that this will be very expensive. In ten years, there will be 60,000 additional shells, and it will be much more expensive. I very much appreciate Mr. Charbonneau's suggestion that the firing should be stopped tomorrow morning. A moratorium is urgently needed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Now we have the parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Clearly, Mr. Hunter has heard that a lot of people in the neighbourhood aren't very happy, and so I'm sitting here trying to figure out....

You've already moved 50% of the operation away. What's stopping you from moving to a new location? Is it the capital investment that's already there? What is that capital investment, and what would it cost to set up somewhere else? There are operating costs that you've identified. How many DND families are living in the area? Is that an issue? What are their complaints about the noise and everything else? Where would you go?

Mr. Laliberte has talked about the pressure of communities and more urban development in areas, and the need to make changes. Obviously you've made changes in the last 10 years. You've figured out that there's a way to operate that's more acceptable.

You talked about the cost of cleaning up, and we do need to look at the last 50 years. It sounds like you're trying to mitigate the cost of the last 10 years for clean-up; there has been this problem for the last 50 years. I would hope that you would be taking all precautions for DND personnel to make sure that they're not going to be at risk, but clearly, we've learned that there are other costs. There are costs to leaving things there as well, and the cost isn't just money; it's the cost to the environment and to our health, and we need to do better calculations.

So what's stopping you from responding and doing more, and where would you go? Is there a place somewhere else that would meet all your needs?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: There is not an obvious alternative available to us or we would have taken it. There isn't a facility that has capacity to accommodate what we do there.

There are 40 employees in Nicolet. In fact, there are less than a dozen at the moment, and it will be down to three or four National Defence employees. The majority of the employees are actually employed by SNC IT, which is our ammunition contractor, which we have engaged to perform compliance testing.

In terms of capital equipment, the costs of moving would not be prohibitive. Much of the equipment would be transportable. The cost of constructing firing batteries and stop butts is reasonably expensive, but not prohibitive.

We've kept very close track of the complaints from the community over the last number of years, however, and while it sounds like it's a general free-for-all in terms of the entire community being against us, the number of complaints are reasonably limited and we respond extremely quickly to them.

But I've already agreed, and the message is very clear from this committee, that we must look at our options to reduce dramatically or stop shooting into this lake, and we will look at what options are available to us in the near term.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Does every other country do the same thing? Is this the only way to test ammunition?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: There are no definitive non-destructive testing methods available for ammunition.

Yes, all NATO nations and, in fact, non-NATO nations but close allies of ours—Australia, and so on—carry out compliance testing, and we all use similar sample sizes. The requirement to have absolute confidence that the ammunition we provide to the men and women of the Canadian Forces or our allied forces is going to work when called on to do so has to be absolute. The only accepted method of obtaining that confidence is through this sample testing method, which is why we do it.

• 1040

We are looking with our allies at whether or not we can reduce the sample sizes. However, as technology has gotten better and reliability and quality have become higher in recent years than they were historically, we can now look at reducing the sample sizes, which will further reduce the amount of shooting we have to do to obtain the same level of confidence. So we're doing that.

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Giroul: On that point, we have asked Brian Emmett, the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner, to carry out an investigation into the obsolescence of the material used, which was something that he brought up in one of his previous reports, as well as into stockpiling. Why stockpile even more? In order to sell weapons to Third World countries? People have talked about the outdated nature of all these activities. That would have to be checked by the Department of National Defence. At present, according to the reports by the Auditor General and the Commissioner, they are a long way from having done theses studies. They say that they are going to study the situation, look into it, do research, etc., but what will happen tomorrow?

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Torsney, another question?

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What research studies are underway, whether with our allies or domestically, to find a different method of testing? That seems to be the problem; it's not just the numbers. No matter what the numbers are, you have to guarantee the ammunition will be effective when we need it. God forbid any of our military personnel should be stuck in a situation where things that are supposed to work aren't working or aren't safe.

But surely another way could have been found in the last 50 years. There must be some kinds of simulations or some kind of modelling that could achieve the same goal. There must be some other way to do this or some research that's being done to find another way.

Mr. Gordon Hunter: In addition to the ammunition program, I have a number of other responsibilities. I'm responsible for quality assurance in National Defence, so that would be the quality of all of the goods and services provided to the Canadian Forces.

Ammunition is in fact the only item we buy that we actually have to test to obtain that level of confidence. In every other activity we look at the quality system that the supplier is applying. We monitor and evaluate the processes they're using, and we make the assumption that if they follow those processes and apply their quality systems effectively, they will produce quality products and we won't have to check them.

In ammunition around the world, it's generally accepted that you can't have absolute confidence without test firing from each and every sample. There's an awful lot of art in making ammunition; it's not just a science. Slight deviations in processes can creep into a process that could affect the quality of the ammunition. To obtain that confidence we do compliance testing.

None of us have come up with a better answer to that, unfortunately.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: How many batches are sent back every year?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: We have a number on that, and it's not zero.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is it 10%, 20%, 5%?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I don't have the number handy on that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before launching a quick second round, I'd like to make the following observation.

The discussion that has taken place in the last hour and a half raises the question as to whether or not artillery is becoming an obsolete form of weaponry. If it were a very key one, one would imagine it would have already been put into place in Kosovo by the NATO generals. The fact that they have preferred other technologies means artillery is certainly not considered to be a key strategic weapon in order to resolve a conflict.

It may well be that artillery is becoming so obsolete that it is being left as one of the last resources in the military strategy. Who knows? I'm not an expert, but evidently this has to be somehow approached and dealt with.

• 1045

If there is sufficient evidence that artillery is not amongst the primary tactical weapons, the whole question of testing is put into doubt as to its validity and necessity. That is a policy decision, of course, that cannot be made by this committee. But it seems to me it is a question that ought to be discussed, and perhaps is discussed within the four walls of the Department of National Defence.

That could also perhaps lead to an initiative by this committee if it were to entertain a motion to call the Minister of National Defence to this committee to justify the rationale for continuing these kinds of tests. It would be perfectly adequate and would also advance and perhaps bring out the latest thinking in military tactics. Obviously there's no point in fighting the next war with the weapons of the last war. That is a practice that is not new in the history of wars.

Secondly, there is also a policy decision that will need to be made eventually by Environment Canada. I'm intrigued by the study schedule. Of course, the question is what is hoped to be achieved by this kind of approach over the next three years. Members of this committee have been informed by Madam Labelle in the briefing notes that Lac Saint-Pierre was designated as a wetland under the Ramsar Convention in 1998. Is that correct?

Ms. Christine Labelle (Committee Researcher): Yes.

The Chairman: That is not a minor development. It is actually a major recognition. The Ramsar Convention is an extremely important one. It is intended to preserve wetlands the world over. That recognition puts this whole issue into a most appealing range of things that could be done. Maybe, as some have suggested, this whole area that is covered by the Ramsar Convention could eventually become a national park. It would be interesting to know whether the people living in the area have discussed this possibility and what their views are, as to the transformation of this area into a national park, and what implications would follow.

For the life of me, as some other members have already expressed, I cannot foresee a study schedule extended into March 2002 in order to come to a solution on this issue, for heaven's sakes.

I imagine sampling is not easy and may be a dangerous activity, but why should it stretch into a period of 18 months? Can the sampling and the writing of the report not be done in the next three months, so the whole study schedule is compressed into the next six months? Perhaps the study schedule ought to be expended on examining the potential under the Ramsar Convention and the potential of a possible national park, and what not.

With that in mind, let us start the second round and see whether some motion will be put forward by members of the committee. I will follow the same order of the first round, beginning with Madame Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Herron, Mr. Rocheleau, Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Casson, the parliamentary secretary, and the chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to say to the officials from the Defence and Environment departments that their answers show that they may be willing to take small steps in the direction of common sense.

• 1050

However, what Mr. Hunter said a few minutes ago really disappointed me. You showed some openness, and we have just been told that this would be very expensive. For me, where the environment is concerned, expense is not an issue. We need to give the environment back to our people. I agree with Mr. Lincoln, who said that we need to think about giving this special site back to the people who live around lake Saint-Pierre. To do that, you are going to need to show some openness toward developing a partnership with the people working on these sites, because there are people working there. There are families in which the father or mother works on one of the sites. You are going to need to put together a partnership or a regional consultative group that will involve people and let them have a say in decisions that will affect health. What Mrs. Kraft Sloan said earlier about health certainly strikes home with me as a woman. We all have children. Perhaps we are a bit too young to have been in the war, but when we hear...

I live in Jonquière, where we frequently hear F-18s flying over. We jump every time. They try not to fly over us, but they do anyway. It has an impact on our body.

I would like your study of these activities to include the impact on the health of women, men and children.

I would also like to see a committee set up to include local residents and people from Environment Quebec, Environment Canada, National Defence and the regional county municipality. There must be a municipality that covers everyone living in the towns in that area.

I want you to understand that it is important to act now for the future. I cannot undo what has been done in the past, but I would like action to be taken now to ensure that, in the future, everyone will have the benefit of good health and reach their full development potential.

I would also like you to consider the idea of creating a national park. I think that that suggestion by the committee is an excellent one.

Since we are talking about a RAMSAR site that has been recognized at the world level, I think that there has to be some movement by National Defence. We should no longer be testing small shells today. We are at the dawn of a new millennium and we do things differently. The people at National Defence have shown a certain degree of openness this morning, and I thank them for that, but they will have to be even more open-minded. Nobody wants wars today. Peace must be nurtured by the things we do every day. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, madam. Could you respond briefly, please?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I appreciate your recognizing the openness we've shown and encouraging us to continue to show more openness. I think the message has been very clear from this committee. We will look aggressively at what options are available to us. There is not an immediate solution to this, I might add, but we will look at what we can do.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I let Mr. Charbonneau go before me and then I'll go after him, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short comment, followed by a suggestion.

A little earlier, we were told that the planned study would cost around $500,000 to $600,000 over three years, if I understood correctly. That means about $200,000 a year or an average of $17,000 a month. Since the study covers a number of aspects, in my opinion, it will be rather superficial and narrow in scope. I have some knowledge of the costs involved in large-scale impact studies, and when I hear about a budget of $500,000 or $600,000 spread over three years, I wonder what will be accomplished, except scratching the surface of these issues, especially since, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that the study's mandate is not even adequate. Ms. Girard-Bujold mentioned the health aspect. An impact study should not be limited to the physical, chemical and technical aspects; it also needs to cover the impact on people and species. It should also look at biological aspects.

• 1055

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a two-part proposal. First of all, the committee should ask for a moratorium on National Defence department testing until we have the results of the study that the two departments are preparing to carry out.

The second part of my proposal is that the study to be carried out by the departments of National Defence and the Environment should be broadened to include not only the technical or physical aspects of the issue, but also the human aspects—I am bringing in Ms. Girard-Bujold's idea here—including health, social and biological aspects.

If you have a friendly suggestion for me regarding another term, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it.

The Chairman: Biological diversity.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes. I would like the study to take into account biological diversity. I would like that aspect to be incorporated into the study and the budgets adjusted as a result so that a serious study can be undertaken.

In short, I am proposing that a moratorium be established and that the scope of the study be broadened to include social, health and biological aspects.

The Chairman: Would the time frames be the same?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

The Chairman: Very well, thank you. Mr. Lincoln is next.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We would be inclined to support Mr. Charbonneau's proposal, but we would like to see the time allotted for the study reduced by at least two thirds. Moreover, it may not be possible to have the moratorium start right away and we could allow a month or two for Defence department officials to make the necessary arrangements.

[English]

Mr. Hunter, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Please ignore the tone of my remarks before. I just feel very strongly about these issues and it has nothing to do with you personally, you appreciate that. I know it's a very tough thing to come before a committee and have shells fired at you. Anyway, I hope you can recover those shells.

What is a sample size of 12,000 shells in regard to the total package of sales in any one year by SNC? In other words, what is the sample size they sell to you when you test 12,000 rounds?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: The sample size varies by nature. I don't think there's a simple answer.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But I thought you said you had to keep doing a minimal norm for a sample size.

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is there a norm for a sample size? Do you have to test 10%, 15%, or 20%?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Does anybody have a quick answer to that back there? Perhaps if you give us a minute, they'll come up with a best guess.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It seems to me that 12,000 has to indicate some norm. What impact would there be if you used a sample size of 6,000 to test at Val-Bélair? Unless you started comparing the two, if you stopped at Nicolet and started sampling only at Val-Bélair—in other words, half or two-thirds—

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I understand.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —over a period you would be able to test the impact on the total number produced. If it didn't vary, then you would have solved the problem right there.

• 1100

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Yes, and just to clarify, the workload that we moved from Nicolet to Val-Bélair is not compliance testing; it's engineering tests of other types. We used to do two different functions at at Nicolet at PETE—compliance testing, which is sample of production lots, and engineering tests on ammunition for ammunition failures or the like. What we've moved is the engineering test, which is about half of the workload. All of the compliance testing is done. We don't do sample testing in other sites where we could use a smaller sample, for example, or compare those results. They're not the same.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But to follow up on what Ms. Torsney brought up, at some of the military sites, can't you do the compliance testing—in other words, firing the shells—somewhere else?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Yes, sir. We do some now. We do it at Gagetown, we do some at Petawawa—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: How many rounds is it that you fire at Gagetown, at Petawawa?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: Well, it's by different natures and different production lots and in terms of a percentage of our workload.

Answering your first question on the size of the sample lot, 10 rounds are fired for 5,000 production lot, as a rule of thumb. It varies and differs by nature of ammunition, but it's roughly 10 rounds for a 5,000 production lot. About 10% of our compliance testing is done at either Gagetown or Petawawa.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Hunter, 10% is nothing. Either you try to increase this.... Make it 100%, then you won't have these people on your backs; you won't have us to bother you.

This is my last question. The 3,700 shells that you reckon are still down in the bottom somewhere, plus the 100 from 1995 to now, roughly—how much in your estimation...? Mr. Giroul talks about half a million; maybe the reality is somewhere in between, we don't know, but you say 3,700. How much will it cost to remove 3,700 shells, and what would be the time span if tomorrow you had to do it pressingly?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: On the different numbers that we were discussing—the half a million is the estimate of the number of rounds that have been fired at Nicolet since we opened in 1952. Not all of those rounds have been fired into the lake; we fire them into stop butts and use other techniques to prevent them from going into the lake. So the 500,000 is the total production that's been carried out there.

We don't have an estimate that I would like to put forward in any way of what it would cost to clean up the lake, but clearly we need to get an estimate and get an evaluation of what it will take to clean up the lake, and we will be moving to do that. We don't have an estimate.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That will be included in the Environment Canada study, or is it something separate that you're going to do?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: No, it will not be included. The Environment study is essentially characterizing the soil in the lake. This is an industrial estimate that a private sector company would have to look at and evaluate what's involved in the clean-up and provide us with a cost estimate. We don't have that.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can you let us have this, please?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I don't know the answer to that question. If we can, then we will do that. I don't know if we're allowed to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour, please.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'll pass, Mr. Chairman, to give the members from Quebec more chance to question.

The Chairman: Monsieur Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I would like to begin by saying that our party supports Mr. Charbonneau's proposal. After he spoke, we also wondered about the budget allocated for the study and we feel that it should perhaps be examined.

I would like to ask the officials from National Defence to explain the connection between their department and SNC-Lavalin. What is the status of that firm? Is it in charge or merely a consulting firm?

As Mr. Charbonneau indicated, the testing does not involve tools using highly advanced technology. Why are the documents so confidential and why is it so difficult to obtain information from your department?

• 1105

As a member of Parliament and acting at the request of representatives from the local citizens' group, I asked SNC-Lavalin to provide me with some information. If my memory serves, I was told that, for reasons of confidentiality, I could not obtain the information. If it deals only with quality control of shells, the information should not be confidential. Why is there so much secrecy surrounding this issue, on the part of both National Defence and SNC-Lavalin?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Hunter: In answer to the first part of your question, SNC Industrial Technologies Inc., which is a Lavalin company, purchased Canadian Arsenal from the Canadian government back in 1986, I believe, or 1987. They are our prime ammunition manufacturer for conventional ammunition of all sizes, small and large calibre. SNC IT is the contractor we've engaged to perform compliance testing on our ammunition, and they have access to our site at Nicolet to do that. We also provide them with access, as required and available, at Gagetown or Petawawa to carry out their compliance testing.

I would like to ask Mr. Tony Downs, our director general of environment at National Defence, to talk to you a little bit about our departmental view of these same issues. Mr. Downs.

Mr. Tony Downs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.

Certainly the sustainable development strategy that DND did submit to Parliament in December 1997 outlines our whole general stewardship approach to environmental protection and what we're trying to do. It is a rigorous step-by-step process, and a lot of our training areas and testing areas in particular are coming under intensive study—flora and fauna studies, inventory studies, looking at what we do and what the impact is. As was mentioned, Nicolet is not specifically mentioned under that list; it was the first list we had.

When issues are raised we usually take steps to do the intensive and increased testing that's required. That has been started. I believe Mr. Hunter also alluded to the fact that the current testing or research that's going to be done by Environment Canada can be expanded to some of the other areas. The Groupe d'action des riverains had suggested we do look at it, and that will be done.

We feel that in most cases where these protected areas such as Ramsar are put in place, much of the reason for their being able to be put in place is that some DND presence has been there that has kept other development away. I know that's an old argument that perhaps you're used to, but I think it also indicates there's a degree of stewardship—

The Chairman: No doubt, but nevertheless I don't know whether you would want to use that as an argument.

Mr. Tony Downs: Well, it's just a suggestion that a lot of times this is not the only one where we are approached. You may be aware the World Wildlife Fund approached us to protect an area of Suffield because there was some shortgrass prairie there that did not exist any where else on the prairie, and that is now being designated a national wildlife area. Prince Philip came to open that.

We have other examples, such as Shilo, Manitoba. The Manitoba government has asked us if we can designate the Shilo training area as a special place under their legislation. Again, it's partly because we're there and they're quite willing to go along with the proviso that our operations continue as they are now.

So the point, really, I'm making is that we have been, with some modification, with some mitigation, able to live well within the intents and objectives of some of these protected areas.

The Chairman: All right, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, have you finished?

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In your opinion, can we expect to see more transparency and less secrecy where this issue is concerned?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Hunter: We are always in compliance with the access to information legislation. I'll have to look into your specific request and what you were denied, because I'm unaware of it. I would do that if you would like me to. Presumably, it's a while ago, but information that we can release to the public in accordance with the departmental and government regulations, we do, and those that we can't, for reasons that we can't, we don't.

• 1110

I'm not the expert in that area of legislation, but we do apply it as transparently and openly as we're permitted to. If there's a specific example that you'd like me to look into, I'd be glad to do that for you.

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau, Mr. Brouillard, and Mr. Giroul, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. André Brouillard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to something that is of great concern to us: the noise. Permanent and mobile noise-monitoring systems have been mentioned. We recognize that improvements have been made in that area. Although measurements have been taken of the acoustic decibels, which are nearer the ear, rather than just the decibels, we have been asking for over a year for a solution to the specific problem of the blast when the guns are fired, especially the large calibre ones. Those problems are not detected by the noise-monitoring system, even though they shake our houses and break the seal on our windows. We are still waiting for them to keep their promises to do this work and hire experts to resolve this problem that the present equipment is not able to detect.

I bring this up again and I want to point out that the noise monitoring equipment does not solve the whole problem, especially not at the lower frequencies. We still have not heard back and we insist that they find a solution. Eliminating the noise is our priority. We recognize that some improvements have been made, but nothing has been done regarding the effects that we feel are most harmful, that is, the vibrations that shake our houses and that are not detected by the acoustic decibel monitors. The experts can confirm what we are saying. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brouillard. Mr. Giroul, please.

Mr. Philippe Giroul: I would like to come back to the issue of confidentiality raised by Mr. Rocheleau. As I mentioned in passing a little earlier, I made a request under the Access to Information Act in January to obtain from the National Defence Department a copy of the contract it had signed with SNC-IT. In a telephone conversation, Mr. Lagacé told me that there was no problem. Two weeks later, I was told that it was impossible to give me what I wanted because the file was under investigation and that my $5 would be returned. "Come back in six months", I was told. What lies behind that? Nobody knows.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Giroul.

[English]

Mr. Hunter, do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Gordon Hunter: I would like to go back and clarify something I said to Mr. Rocheleau. I'm advised that the route for you to follow, if you're unhappy with the information we've provided, is through the information commissioner for the government. You can address your concerns there, and the information commissioner will follow up on anything. I just want you to know that we do try to apply the policies in an even-handed and open, transparent fashion in all instances.

With respect to Mr. Giroul's request for a copy of the SNC IT contract, I'm not familiar with the details or the status. Mr. Lagacé is looking into that and will be in touch with you further on it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I would like now to conclude in case there is a vote in 29 minutes. It may be a quorum. We have Mr. Laliberte and—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam Parliamentary Secretary.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, there's an issue that keeps going round and round the table that hasn't been answered—and you raised it. Why can't the study be tightened up? Can we get an answer from the panellists as to whether or not they can do the study?

The Chairman: That's not a point of order.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, it's a point of order that you raised an issue and I'd like to get an answer.

The Chairman: It has nothing to do with my little interests. It has to with the fact that it's not a point of order. When you are down to ask a question, you're more than welcome to do that—in a moment.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is, I guess, more of a committee issue. We've had a recommendation for a moratorium, but the suggestion you made for an invitation to the minister should be looked at as well.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. I wonder if we could ask the panellists to answer the question that you raised earlier and didn't get an answer to.

The Chairman: I was going to invite Madame Bérard, at a certain point, to make a comment if she wished to do so.

Please comment.

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: We are aware of the urgency of the matter, and our discussions here this morning only reinforce that. As for reducing the time allocated for the study, technical and biological constraints have to be taken into account. Our schedule calls for the preliminary report to be published in September 2001, which is less than three years away. The time frames take into account certain constraints with respect to biodiversity. We want to have samples that are as representative as possible. It takes about three months to get laboratory results back. Statistical validation of our data also must be carried out.

• 1115

Moreover, as you may have noticed in our diagram entitled "Project Organization", we want to strongly encourage involvement by our partners, including the community, in the project. It is important to give people the time they need to familiarize themselves with the reports, so that we will end up with a concerted approach and agreed-on results; that way, we will not have to negotiate the options that will be put on the table, since they will have already been approved by the partners.

The Chairman: Ms. Bérard, that said, would it not be possible to reduce the time involved?

Ms. Marie-France Bérard: We can do our best, but it would be difficult to ensure that the inclusions are accepted by everyone before September 2001.

The Chairman: Mr. Brouillard, please.

Mr. André Brouillard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask François Guibert, who is one of our resource persons on environmental aspects and the former Regional Director for Environment Québec, to briefly talk about the potential of a national park and the impact it would have on local citizens.

The Chairman: Mr. Guibert.

Mr. François Guibert (Environmental Consultant, Groupe d'action des riverains): My name is François Guibert and I am a biologist. I was Director of the Environment for the Ministry of Recreation, Fish and Wildlife for a number of years and I worked in this field for 25 years. In my work, I was responsible for a number of parks and wildlife reserves in Quebec. I act as a resource person for the group.

Our region is a very rare and threatened site. Seventy percent of wet lands along the St. Lawrence have disappeared, although this region has resisted encroachment by industrial activities and agriculture. There used to be some 50 farms in this area of 22 square kilometres. We are not necessarily recommending the establishment of a national park. It could be a protected area that allows for hunting and fishing. For three or four weeks every year, some 70,000 people come to watch migratory birds, geese that come to the area near the DND site. It is not the DND lands that attract them, but rather the flooded agricultural land outside the National Defence boundaries.

If I cite that figure, it is because I want to point out that Lake Saint-Pierre is an inhabited region in the heart of Quebec, not far from Trois-Rivières, Drummondville, Montreal and Québec. We have visitors from Québec, the United States and other provinces. This site has great potential as a protected area.

Before people think of any other vocation for the lake, a study needs to be carried out to assess the pollution caused by the shells, even if there is a moratorium on firing. The simple act of throwing out an anchor when boating could be the last thing you ever do as a fisherman because the anchor may not catch hold: it may fly up in the air.

• 1120

This is an extremely dangerous spot and not everyone is aware of that. People travel around in this area and sometimes small planes even fly over it. We were talking earlier about the ice carrying things; the ice picks up stones and shells from the bottom and carries them as far as Île d'Orléans, and even up to Rivière- du-Loup. We heard about that at the trial in 1982.

It is essential for Environment Canada to do a study, which should also include sediment depth. If there are 500,000 10-pound shells at the bottom of the lake, it represents an absolutely huge amount of lead and steel down there. I do not know if it can be recycled.

Regardless of the sediment quality, however, the presence of live shells and metal is unacceptable and very dangerous. The future of any potential national park will depend on decontamination and de-mining. That is also true of the 22 square kilometres of land. There may have been testing for mines and various types of live shells, which are still there. A study will need to be undertaken before the possibility of a park could be considered, but it is a wonderful goal, and the local people would surely be very pleased to have one.

As I said earlier, these problems concern both local people and those living farther away. This is an exceptional site. There are few others like it along the St. Lawrence today. It has great potential.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Guibert.

Could we discuss Mr. Charbonneau's motion? Are there any other comments? If not, I would invite Mr. Charbonneau to move a very clear motion on the moratorium and on a broader mandate for the study. I would ask our clerk to read the motion.

The Committee Clerk:

That the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development of the House of Commons call for a moratorium on test firing at the Nicolet Experimental Test Centre as soon as possible and until the results of the Environment Canada and National Defence impact study are available;

That the impact study planned by Environment Canada and National Defence be broadened to include a study of the human and social impact and the impact on biodiversity;

That the duration of the study be reconsidered and shortened if possible.

The Chairman: Do you have comments or questions? Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I think that Mr. Charbonneau had also included additional funds for the study. I do not see that in the motion.

The Chairman: That would raise a delicate procedural issue regarding the eligibility of the motion. It would be preferable to leave it—

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... motion about the available and planned budget, especially if the mandate is broadened. I think that if those responsible agreed to implement the proposal, they would have to adjust the budget accordingly.

• 1125

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Parliamentary Secretary.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are two issues. First of all, I gather this will be voted on at the next meeting, and second—

The Chairman: I don't know.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We don't have a quorum.

The Chairman: We don't have a quorum, yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Second, I wonder why there is nothing in there about seeking the Minister of National Defence to come before this committee and perhaps address this issue so that we might be more targeted in our approach.

The Chairman: That will be another motion. It could be put forward by another member for consideration, definitely. I would suggest it be a separate motion from this.

Unfortunately, we don't have a quorum to make a decision today, but we will put it forward at our next meeting as soon as we have the required quorum.

The next meeting, the clerk is reminding us, will be on contaminated sites, which is a very strange and interesting coincidence. It may just be the right moment and the right subject.

On behalf of the committee members, then, I would like to thank all the witnesses who have appeared here today for their time and for their input and for their clarification and enlightenment.

It was certainly a very interesting session. We have learned at lot, at least I have, and we look forward to examining progress with you, if not six months from now, perhaps twelve months from now, so as to bring this matter to a happy conclusion. We are very grateful to the citizens of Lac Saint-Pierre for having watched this issue so carefully, for having prepared the briefs, including one that was not circulated but that should be circulated, by André Brouillard, “Au-delà de la pointe de l'iceberg”, which makes quite interesting reading. I would urge the clerk to distribute it.

I would also like to thank the officials of course for their participation, and those who are in the room.

This meeting now stands adjourned until the next call. Thank you very much.