With regard to the Kathryn Spirit: (a) did the government ask Lloyds to conduct a study of the hazardous materials onboard the wreck and if so, (i) when was it conducted, (ii) did the company’s employees access, visit or see the wreck at Beauharnois, (iii) did they analyze samples from the wreck, (iv) if they did not have access, what are the reasons, how could they have written their report and what ship served as the model for writing the report, (v) does the report recommend that a detailed environmental inspection be carried out and that a full environmental survey be conducted to validate the presence of hazardous materials, and if so, were the inspection and survey completed, (vi) if so, what were the findings of the inspection and the survey, broken down by material and concentration; (b) what were the waste, materials and liquids removed from the wreck that were sent to a facility outside the worksite for recycling or disposal in accordance with paragraph 10.3 of the statement of work broken down by (i) date, (ii) description, (iii) quantity, (iv) disposal or recycling site; (c) on what date did the Kathryn DJV consortium provide the government with the project management plan, (i) did it include the emergency response plan, (ii) if it was not included, when was the emergency response plan provided to the government representative; (d) did the government provide the emergency response plan to the Beauharnois and Chateauguay fire services, and if so, (i) on what date, (ii) in what format (mail, email, other); (e) according to government information, when did the consortium provide the emergency response plan to the Beauharnois and Chateauguay fire services and (i) have they provided updated versions since then, (ii) if so, which versions, broken down by date and format; (f) what company did Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) hire to monitor the worksite in order to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations and (i) what specific mandate did PSPC give it, (ii) how does the company monitor the worksite, broken down by each task and the number of people involved, (iii) has this company found any violations of the workplace health and safety regulations broken down by date and description of these violations; (g) what company did PSPC hire to monitor the worksite in order to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and (i) what specific mandate did PSPC give it, (ii) how does the company monitor the worksite, broken down by each task and the number of people involved, (iii) has this company found any violations of the environmental regulations broken down by date and description of these violations; (h) was contaminated water removed from the Kathryn Spirit, broken down by (i) date, (ii) ship compartments, (iii) type of pollutant found, (iv) how it was treated; (i) did the consortium discharge into Lac St-Louis any water contained in the Kathryn Spirit, broken down by (i) discharge date, (ii) discharge site, (iii) date of the Environment Canada analysis, (iv) content of the Environment Canada analysis; and (j) did Environment Canada refuse to discharge water into Lac St-Louis; (i) was Environment Canada given notice before each water discharge, pumping or other by the company into the lake or any other waterway as called for by the statement of work?
In the House of Commons on June 20th, 2018. See this statement in context.