Sheila Copps

[Points Of Order, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know all members join with the Prime Minister and the government in welcoming the arrival of the new Clerk of the Privy Council. It is the first time a woman has held the most senior position in the bureaucracy in the Government of Canada.

I rise on a point of order because as she is a public servant she cannot defend herself. Clearly in the press reports this morning there are claims that the Clerk of the Privy Council in some way misrepresented her educational and academic credentials.

The company that published the academic credentials was the Financial Post company, a private corporation. I took the opportunity of reviewing three other so-called résumés in this particular document-

[Environmental Secretariat, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the tone of the hon. member's question is a very good indication of how he and his party do not understand that this party believes that Canadians belong in every part of this country. My brother living in the city of Montreal is every bit as Canadian as anybody living in his city. One thing that is going to be very important for the future of this country is if Canadians from Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver, Dartmouth, St. John's and Hamilton begin to understand that we are all in this together.

If the member is really interested in moving the environmental agenda forward, I would ask him to participate in the conference on environmental technologies. I would ask him to put his mind to new and innovative ideas for future technology.

The reality is that environmental technologies are the cutting edge of jobs for-

[Environmental Secretariat, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the statement by the member is absolutely false.

I invited him last Monday along with any other colleague in the House to come to my office and personally review every single one of the applicant cities. There were 25 cities that applied, 25 cities that had applications based on five criteria which were public criteria, which I released with all relevant documents.

I invited the member last Monday to come and review the applications from his city and from the other cities. Unfortunately, he and his colleagues have not shown any interest in actually seeing the documents.

I have released in this House, publicly, every single document on that issue that was reviewed by me. I have invited the member and his colleagues to come and personally review the approximately 15,000 pages of documents that came from the cities. I would ask him to come over and review the facts and I think when he sees the facts he will agree with me that among 25 very good applicant cities, Montreal was the best choice.

[Social Program Reform, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what I find somewhat regrettable about the opposition party's stand is that right now,

there are 400,000 unemployed workers in Quebec. The federal government is working with the provinces to find a way that would enable the unemployed to receive training that would lead to employment.

Instead of complaining that we are trying to achieve a consensus, instead of criticizing us for our decision to take some more time in order to make the best possible decisions, the spokesperson for the opposition should be congratulating us for seeking the co-operation of all provinces. That is why we have decided, not to cancel the meeting, but only to postpone it until we are certain that we have achieved this consensus.

[Government Expenditures, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member would ask that question given that when his leader responded to the government's budget the comment his leader made was that one department that should not be cut was the Department of the Environment because of its importance.

[The Environment, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the selection process was never fixed in favour of any city.

I have brought with me today a copy of the report from KPMG. I would be very happy to provide the member and all other members with an opportunity to review every single proposal. I will say to the hon. member that environmental considerations were certainly one of the key considerations.

When he starts pointing the finger at cities that spew sewage, unfortunately there are a number of cities across the country that spew raw sewage into the ocean, including several in his own province. What the member should bear in mind is that Montreal has a plan in place right now to deal with the problem. It will be operational by the end of next year. I only wish that every one of the other 25 applicant cities had as significant a reputation when it came to actually dealing with the problems of raw sewage.

[Irving Whale, March 18th, 1994]

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.

[Irving Whale, March 18th, 1994]

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.

[National Defence, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that marine transportation policy is a responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Indeed, he has answered questions on the matter, in the House, on several occasions. The hon. member said, as did his colleague, that the Minister of Finance did not have the right to act in certain areas or to set policy because he was formerly in business. This is a disgrace.

When you talk to Ghislain Dufour, he asks that more businesspersons come to Parliament. This is the second time that the hon. member tries in one way or another to suggest that things are not right because the Minister of Finance was previously in business. This is unfair.

Let me just add that the Minister of Transport already made some commitments in this House regarding the smart ship.

[Unemployment, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that as a member of the government I am any less sensitive to the people in my riding who have lost their jobs than the member opposite. I accept the fact that every member in the House hurts when a person in their riding loses a job.

The fact is that we need to put in place specific strategies on the one hand to make sure we are protecting the aged, the sick, and those people who have no chance, no means or no need to re-enter the workforce. They must have their income levels protected. At the same time we have to ensure that those people of my age who see the old jobs disappearing have the tools they need to get back into the productive workforce.

It is a delicate balancing act. It is going to cause some pain, but we will have to do it because without the pain of the change in the workforce we will end up in the 21st century with no new jobs for those people in my age group who need to get back into the productive workforce.