House of Commons Hansard #40 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parties.
Julian Reed Liberal Halton—Peel, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
In December 1993 a resident of the constituency of Halton-Peel experienced an alarming accident when a cotton housecoat she was wearing caught fire causing a powerful blue flame.
During the investigation of this incident, a federal lab report indicated that the flammability of cotton is significantly increased with the use of household fabric softeners.
What measures have been taken to publicize and correct these hazards?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the incident that the hon. member has brought up. A woman wearing a terrycloth robe leaned across a lit candle and there was a flash flame across the terrycloth. Fortunately there was no injury although it was a frightening experience.
I am also aware of the report that says a fabric softener may increase the flammability of certain types of material. Unfortunately only one kind of material was tested in this report so we cannot draw definite conclusions.
We are continuing our study of the matter. Let me reassure Canadians through you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member as well, that textile flammability regulations under the Hazardous Products Act which were brought in in 1971 have been extremely effective in preventing flammable textiles from staying on the market.
We certainly intend to continue enforcing-
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In his annual report, the Commissioner of Human Rights reveals that the federal government goes against several of its own legislative provisions by allowing Revenue Canada to deny homosexual couples access to various fringe benefits given to heterosexual couples.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to propose amendments to applicable Canadian legislation in order to put an end to this type of discrimination against homosexual couples?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, in its campaign for office, in its throne speech and in statements made subsequently in the House, the government has committed itself to amendments to the Human Rights Act which will add sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited.
We intend to follow through on that commitment.
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of many distinguished scientists that the Kemano completion project has the ability to devastate wild salmon in the Fraser River system.
Currently the effect of this project is being monitored and is under review on the Nechako basin alone by the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. The Rivers Defence Coalition, a coalition of groups opposed to the project, have expended their resources and are being forced to withdraw from the hearings.
What steps will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take to ensure that the public interest represented by the Rivers Defence Coalition continues to be heard at the hearings?
Kemano ProjectOral Question Period
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, following a number of conversations I have had in the last few days, including a conversation yesterday with the member who has just put the question, I have been attempting to ascertain all of the facts with respect to the continuance of the hearings and the participation of all relevant groups.
I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with interested colleagues, including my colleague and friend the Minister of the Environment. Once we are in possession of all the facts we have undertaken to see whether there are additional appropriate measures which can be taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that indeed the commitment of the Prime Minister to open and transparent hearings is fulfilled.
We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come forward in the days ahead.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table a number of documents in both official languages in relation to the Irving Whale . They include the risk assessment of the Irving Whale salvage options, the final report, the Irving Whale salvage feasibility study, and the Irving Whale survey.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with good news. I wish to advise the House that the Government of Canada intends to lift the sunken oil barge Irving Whale in order to avoid environmental disaster.
People living on Prince Edward Island will be happy that this cloud hanging over their heads will finally be lifted.
The people of the Magdalen Islands will also be glad to know they will no longer be threatened with pollution from the time bomb that is the Irving Whale . As well, the tourism industry and the lobster fishery will be threatened no longer.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I have carefully assessed all available information and we have decided to put forward a proposal to raise and salvage the Irving Whale . This is an excellent example of co-operation between our two departments. Transport Canada and Environment Canada have worked together in a prompt and efficient manner to solve an old
problem. The Irving Whale has been lying on the bottom of the sea for 8,593 days, threatening to spill its oil at any moment.
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from a report of a former Environment Minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition. This report, tabled in September 1990, called for immediate action to deal with the Irving Whale . The report was released by the Minister of Environment of a previous Conservative government, namely Lucien Bouchard. Since then, it is obvious that nothing has been done to raise the barge. It took this government only 135 days to find a solution.
The Irving Whale has been lying on the bottom of the ocean for 8,593 days. Those 8,593 days did not pass without comment and outrage from the people of Atlantic Canada and the Magdalen Islands.
More recently, in 1989 the Leader of the Opposition while Minister of the Environment with much pomp and circumstance commissioned the Brander-Smith report. It reviewed tanker safety and marine spills response capability.
In meetings throughout Atlantic Canada during his tenure in 1989 the commission was repeatedly warned about the threat the Irving Whale posed. It was warned in Halifax. It was warned in Saint John. It was warned in Charlottetown by Prince Edward Island's Minister of the Environment. Unfortunately, the minister of the day did not act.
The review report announced, as I mentioned earlier, by the former Environment Minister, says, on page 127, and I quote: "The barge Irving Whale sank in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No attempt was made to salvage the barge or its cargo''. Despite the condition of the barge, nothing was done.
In the same report recommendation 613 on page 131 states that a decision must be made as to whether or not to remove the oil or raise the barge. However nothing was done.
It took this government only 135 days to listen to the concerns of residents of Atlantic Canada and the Magdalen Islands and to make a decision to find a solution to this problem.
The Irving Whale sank in September 1970 and lies in 70 metres of water off North Point, P.E.I. It contains an estimated 3,100 tonnes of Bunker-C oil. We are taking this action today because we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Of course, the proposal to raise the Irving Whale will undergo an environmental assessment and the public will have the opportunity to comment before a final decision is made.
Public consultations will begin shortly and will include the fishing and tourism industries, environmental groups, municipal officials and the general public. Public meetings will be held in Quebec, as well as on the Magdalen Islands.
Public hearings will also be held in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. We will begin immediately with the preparatory work including planning, contracting and the environmental assessment review. If the government's proposal is supported by the environmental assessment and the public meetings, the lifting will take place this summer if possible, but the summer of 1995 at the latest.
Raising the Whale could be completed in about 40 days, half the time it would take to pump the barge. This option will remove all possibility of future pollution. Once the Whale has been raised it will then be moved to a suitable location to be pumped and cleaned under controlled conditions.
This site has been regularly monitored by air and surface for years and still is. Last September a combined operation by the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy successfully capped leaking vents and reinforced the tank hatches.
As soon as the weather permits, divers will be going down to verify the condition of the barge. This will ensure that the Irving Whale will not leak until it is lifted.
The private sector has completed three reports on the removal of oil from the Irving Whale . As promised in this House, I am happy to table them today.
Based on the best technical and scientific information available at this time, and taking into account the report's findings, the Minister of Transport and I believe the best option is to raise the barge and remove its cargo.
Analysis by the Canadian Coast Guard shows that raising the barge is safe, technically easier and more cost-effective. Raising it will cost about $10 million while the cost of pumping the oil from the bottom would cost $27 million.
Lifting also presents the least risk to the environment and to the safety of those involved in the operation. As well a lifting operation uses known technology, leaves no residual oil and is less prone to uncontrolled cost escalation and time overruns.
I want to publicly acknowledge the work of the Minister of Transport on this important issue. I particularly want to acknowledge the dedication of the public servants in both depart-
ments who worked very hard to pull this package together from the perspectives of financing and the technical applications.
I would be remiss if I did not also publicly acknowledge the leadership role played by the minister responsible for Prince Edward Island, the Secretary of State for Veterans. As we speak he is on the island viewing this presentation. Also there are the members of Parliament from the respective regions, including the hon. member for Egmont who worked very hard on this issue and the hon. member for Malpeque who particularly brought a new perspective to the issue.
And also the hon. member from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who worked very hard to resolve this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member laughs. The member should not laugh because this government can be darn proud of the fact that in the short period of 135 days it has been able to solve a problem that had been hanging around his government for almost nine years.
I am quite proud of the fact that we got our act together. We found the financial tools necessary and we are going to raise the Irving Whale .
Based on the assessment of all available information, the Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada are proposing to raise the Irving Whale . This solution is the best suited to fully resolve the problems. This solution also poses the least risk in terms of the environment and human safety.
I want to emphasize that the government is committed to a thorough and complete environmental review of the proposed action. We will give serious consideration to all new information brought forward during the environmental assessment and consultation process.
Finally I want to thank my hon. friend, the Minister of Transport, for his commitment and co-operation in helping develop this solution. I also again want to thank my colleagues, the hon. Secretary of State for Veterans and the hon. members for Egmont, Malpeque and Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who have been working so hard to find a solution to this potential disaster.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
Mr. Speaker, as an ecologist and a recognized environment specialist, I can only welcome this announcement. As a matter of fact, I took an interest in the Irving Whale , a potential ecological time-bomb, as soon as I became the opposition's environment critic.
On January 21, I had the honour to ask my very first oral question in the House. It concerned the Irving Whale . Since then, both my constituency office and my Ottawa office have been receiving phone call after phone call, and numerous faxes, either from the Magdalen Islands or Prince Edward Island.
All these messages told me something very strange. People in that part of the country are concerned about two things. First of all, they want this carcass to be emptied of its content ASAP. And second, they wonder who will pay for the clean-up operation on this time-bomb. That is not even mentioned in the minister's statement.
As far as my first question is concerned, we were told this afternoon that the barge was going to be raised. This proposal will go ahead provided it clears the public hearings process and the environmental assessment review.
My understanding is that the three reports tabled here at noon are aimed at finding the best solution to get rid of this danger. How is it then that the environment factors were not taken into account?
There is a chance that the proposed solution, which is to raise the barge, will not pass the environmental assessment review process, in which case we will be back to square one.
Those three studies have already cost a significant amount of money. It is fine and dandy to hold public hearings, but if they lead to different conclusions from the ones in the report, does that mean that the latter are skewed and that we must start all over again?
We are running out of time. Therefore, I suppose that the hearings in question will be more like briefings, especially since the Easter-Gagnon committee already consulted people two weeks ago. And then the minister comes in this afternoon and announces that there will be further consultations. Well, if the Easter-Gagnon consultations were so efficient, why do we need more? To spend more money? To stage a show for the media? I wonder.
I now wonder about the work carried out by the Easter-Gagnon committee, which held two series of hearings at the beginning of March 1994 with more than 25 groups, associations, municipalities, political parties and individuals, since the minister just announced with much pomp and circumstance yet another series of public consultations. Is this another way to postpone, I repeat, to postpone action? Setting up committees and undertaking reviews is fine, but a government that takes action is even better.
As for the second solution, not a word. Irving, which still owns the barge, gets off scot-free once again. Twice in 24 years, with the same party in power.
I believe, like most residents of that region and like all members of the Bloc Quebecois who are asking serious questions, that taxpayers should not have to pay for this cleanup. Bloc members will keep their eyes open to track the real costs directly related to this wreck.
True, the Irving Whale has been lying off the islands for 8,593 days, but let us not forget that, of these 8,593 days, 3,450 were spent under the Conservatives and 5,308 under the Liberals. To these 5,308 Liberal days, we must add all the days to come until the summer of 1995.
If the minister is proud of herself and her colleagues, I know many people earning their living from the sea who want this Irving Whale business to end as quickly as possible.
The problem is simple. For a quarter of a century, a barge containing 3,100 tonnes of bunker C has been lying on the bottom of the ocean 70 meters below the surface, off the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.
Rust is doing its work slowly but surely.
The Irving family was compensated for the loss of its oil tanker by its insurance company. Someone must be bright enough to decide that this wreck cannot be left on the bottom of the ocean for another quarter century, and someone must take the initiative to raise it while there is still time.
As the Minister of the Environment said, we have decided to raise the barge because we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Indeed, every day that the minister spends on reviews and consultations increases the risks. The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to move quickly to make those responsible pay and to act safely because we do not have the right to cause an environmental disaster in that beautiful part of Quebec and Prince Edward Island.
In closing, I would like to thank all the people of the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island who regularly contacted my riding office or my office here in Ottawa to give me information, but mostly to share with me their main concern. I am aware today, Mr. Speaker, that if the government acted so quickly after only 135 days, it is because there was on the opposition benches someone who-
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
And I will end on this, Mr. Speaker, there was on the opposition benches a critic who cared about the environment and about this issue, and even in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I rose at every meeting just to be told, "Wait, wait, we are going to do something".
Irving WhaleRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
We can tell it is Friday!
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on her announcement today. Irving Whale has been a ticking environmental time bomb since it sank in 1970 and another Liberal administration allowed it to remain there.
Nevertheless, the minister should be congratulated for this action. At the same time she should be condemned for her inaction on another issue in the gulf area, namely, the proposed pumping of waste water from Scott Maritimes Limited pulp and paper plant two kilometres into Northumberland Strait.
Nearly 30 years ago area residents were told the treatment system for effluent from the Scott Maritimes mill would result in water suitable for swimming or even drinking. The results today include a dead, stinky lagoon and area fishermen say a mile long area of dead bottom near Powell's Point where no plankton grow and no fish swim.
Nova Scotia's current proposal for remedying this situation includes a $17 million upgrade of the effluent treatment system which it operates, the bypassing of the existing stabilization lagoon and extending the effluent pipeline two kilometres into the Northumberland Strait.
In a letter to you, minister, dated November 8, 1993, to which you have not replied, Mary J. Gorman and Percy Hayne Jr. informed you that fishermen were fed up-
Irving WhaleRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Order. I would just like to remind members to not forget to pass their comments through the Chair and not directly to one another.
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Mary J. Gorman and Percy Hayne Jr. informed the minister that fishermen were fed up with the daily dumping of 87 million litres of effluent into Northumberland Strait by Scott Maritimes Limited.
One, they asked the minister how the federal government can justify agreeing with the Nova Scotia government's recent proposal to pipe Scott's effluent to MacKenzie Head, long considered by fishermen to be a vital spawning area.
Two, they asked whether the federal government can guarantee that the chemicals which have not already flowed into this strait over these past 30 years but which have been accumulated in Boat Harbour settlement ponds will not now be inadvertently piped to MacKenzie Head.
Three, they asked whether the federal government and all parties involved in these negotiations consider it justifiable to diffuse and disperse toxic, bioactive chemicals into our oceans
which influence sexual maturity and reproduction in fish when alternate technology exists.
Four, they asked whether the federal and all parties involved in these negotiations will lobby Scott Maritimes whose multi-million dollar profits have been subsidized by the taxpayers of Nova Scotia for the past 30 years to consider an alternate bleaching process and once and for all stop polluting Boat Harbour and Northumberland Strait.
The Halifax Chronicle Herald called for a full scale public review of the proposed upgrading of the effluent system. The province's $17 million plan should be tested in the fire of informed debate, they claim.
They go on to say that Atlantic Canada's offshore banks have few enough rich spawning grounds left and the region cannot risk sacrificing more on the altar of political expediency.
We congratulate the minister on the Irving Whale announcement but suggest that she not be too self-satisfied because there is another ecological disaster in the making and she should do something about it.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension ActRoutine Proceedings
Windsor West Ontario
Liberal
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor West, that the twelfth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled earlier today now be concurred in.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is there unanimous consent?
Judy Bethel Liberal Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from Canadians across the country who are concerned about what is happening in Latvia.
Along with the member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park, over 600 Canadians are asking Parliament to urge Russia to withdraw its troops from Latvia. The people of Latvia have repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from a radar station on their border. They are concerned about the health impacts of radiation from this station.
The Canadians who signed this petition would like the federal government to make future aid to Russia dependent on respect for human rights of the people of Latvia.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from the residents of Moberly Lake, B.C.
They ask Parliament to enact legislation to change Canada Post policy. People who have received mail at an existing post office for many years are forced to collect their mail at another site of Canada Post's choosing. If they do not change to the new facility they must pay a fee to continue to receive mail at their old location.
These residents do not believe this change-or-pay policy is fair. All Canadians are allowed one free mode of delivery and these residents believe they should at least have the choice of collecting mail at the same site as they have for decades.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, question No. 12 will be answered today.
Question No. 12-