Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

National Defence — Environmental Stewardship of Military Training and Test Areas
(Chapter 7 - April 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada)

26 May 2003

Hugh McRoberts,
Assistant Auditor General

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to meet with the Committee to discuss Chapter 7 on Environmental Stewardship of Military Training and Test Areas. With me today is Wendy Loschiuk, Principal responsible for our audits of National Defence, and Anne-Marie Smith, our legal advisor.

The challenge for National Defence is to train its people on one hand and manage the environment on the other. We understand the demands of realistic military training and its impacts on the land. But we were concerned when we found instances where National Defence had not shown the environmental stewardship we expected to see.

We found instances of non-compliance with environmental protection legislation and examples where the military continued training in areas already identified as unsuitable. While it is working on sites potentially contaminated by unexploded ordnance, more needs to be done. The Department has a protocol for managing environmental issues, but needs to better implement it.

First, National Defence, like other departments, must comply with environmental laws. We cited examples of non-compliance with the Fisheries Act, one case of non-compliance with the Forestry Act and our concerns about compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Because of the length of time taken to address environmental issues, we believe these examples point to ongoing problems. While investigating two of the examples, the Department itself concluded there was insufficient attention given to environmental concerns.

Military training and test activities have continued for decades on land set aside for that purpose. But, today the laws have changed. While training and testing should continue, National Defence must ensure the areas are sustainable. The Committee may wish to ask National Defence to demonstrate how it is fully complying with environmental legislation and practising sustainable land use.

National Defence understands its responsibilities and is aware of its obligations. The Department's own Manoeuvre Area Planning System, or MAPS, was developed in 1996 to study training and test impacts and how to deal with them. But seven years later, MAPS needs to go beyond the studies and into mitigation, restoration, monitoring and follow-up. The Department needs to move more quickly to implement measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This is particularly important for training areas that are too sensitive for continued training. Our audit showed the Department was inconsistent in its approach to dealing with these lands—only some of the bases put sensitive ranges off limits.

What prevented the Manoeuvre Area Planning System from being used? Communications about implementing MAPS wasn't clear, there was no follow-up on what had happened after studies were completed and funding for recommendations must compete with other priorities. At the bases we reviewed, we saw action on about one-third of the MAPS recommendations. This finding did not agree with the Department's 2000-2001 Performance Report stating MAPS had been implemented on those bases.

National Defence should be encouraged to continue implementing MAPS and ensure priorities, timelines and costs are in its business plans and performance reports to Parliament.

In October 2002 the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported the federal government was not dealing with contaminated sites promptly. We focused on live-fire ranges and wanted to know if the potential for contamination was being managed in a prompt and on-going way.

The science of identifying live-fire contamination is still developing. That is—what is left in the soil, what risks does it pose, and how do we deal with it? Defence Research and Development Canada was asked by the Army to test some of its bases. However, this can be costly and funds are limited. We are concerned that the work may not proceed as needed.

If there is contamination in the soil, it needs to be fixed. The Department must identify all its contaminated sites, determine priorities and costs, and track progress. And it should know the potential for contamination when foreign militaries fire munitions in Canada and how those countries will contribute to clean-up costs.

Most training areas can sustain military training if measures are taken to address environmental stress. Future use of land depends upon good environmental management. Unresolved problems can worsen until areas become unsuitable for training or mitigation and restoration becomes more costly down the road. The Committee may want to ask the Department how it plans to make the environment a more prominent concern when planning activities and setting priorities.

Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions.