Art Eggleton

[Kosovo, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to increase the tension with the Russians with respect to this matter.

The exact details of the naval embargo have not been worked out yet. They are being attended to by the military planners now. That will be reported to the NATO council later this week.

What is very encouraging is that a number of countries in the European Union have already decided that they would agree to an embargo. Therefore, if there is a naval force there, it would be helping to ensure that the very things those countries agreed to were being followed.

[Kosovo, April 26th, 1999]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are attempting to bring this conflict to an end as quickly as possible. The naval embargo will help to deny oil supplies and other war materials to Milosevic's military machine, which is inflicting great pain on the people of Kosovo.

We want to stop that ethnic cleansing just as quickly as possible. That is what that is about.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1999]

(a) A progress report on the cleanup of the sites that are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996: The cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and of Cape Parry, PIN-M, is substantially complete. The cleanup of a fuel farm and two landfills in the Tuktoyaktuk area is planned to begin in 1999. The cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, started in 1998 and will continue in 1999. The cleanup of Komakuk beach, BAR-1, is planned to begin in 1999. The progress of cleanup in the Inuvialuit settlement region has met the work start-up and completion dates shown in the co-operation agreement.

(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in the Inuvialuit settlement region is $73.4 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $24.3 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project adminstration costs.

(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites were the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, cadmium and zinc have been generally confined to sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead has been found in petroleum, oil, and lubricant spills. PCB, although detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. The source is transformer and hydraulic fluids. Leachate waters, and soils near the base of some landfills, contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfills. The remaining contamination appears to be restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.

(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants in to the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long-term impact on human health and the environment.

(e) The list of companies which have received federal governement contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $2.8 million. Cape Parry, PIN-M, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $6.2 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, was awarded to Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated and the present value of the contract is $9.5 million. The contract value of $2.8 million for cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and the contract value of $6.2 for Cape Parry, PIN-M, have been spent. The contract total of $9.5 million for cleanup of the Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, has not been completely spent as another year of cleanup through 1999 remains.

(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: All of the contracts have been publicly tendered through MERX, formerly the open bidding system. Economic provisions form part of the co-operation agreement for the project and are included as part of the contracts. Within the terms of the Inuvialuit final agreement and the co-operation agreement for the project the department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting.

Question No. 216—

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1999]

(a) The structure of the environmental framework for cleanup: The framework for the cleanup will be in accordance with the agreement between Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Her Majesty in the right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence for the cleanup and restoration of Distant Early Warning sites within the Nunavut settlement area. This agreement was signed in Cambridge Bay on September 1, 1998 and details the environmental provisions to carry out the cleanup.

(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in Nunavut is $200 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $14.2 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project administration costs.

(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies carried out between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites are the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, zinc and cadmium are found in sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead is found in petroleum and oil spills. Although PCBs are detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, they are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. Leachate waters and soils near the base of some landfills contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfill. The remaining contamination is restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.

(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants into the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long term impact on human health and the environment.

(e) The list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Cape Hooper, FOX-4, was awarded to Qikiqtaaluk Corporation of Iqaluit and the value of the contract is $6.8 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded to Kitikmeot Corporation of Cambridge Bay and the value of the contract is $7.3 million. The contract value of $6.8 million for cleanup of Cape Hooper, FOX-4, has been spent. The contract for cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded in late summer of 1998 and only several months of a projected two year cleanup have been completed.

(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: The contracts awarded in Nunavut were negotiated with regional aboriginal development corporations. This was done to build confidence in the cleanup standard and to develop the expertise of local business so it can compete for future DEW Line cleanup contracts. This practice is in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Nunavut land claims agreement. Future contracts will be conducted in a competitive manner if industry shows sufficient interest in the process by which this is carried out. Should industry not be interested, contracts will be negotiated with the designated Inuvialuit-Inuit firm in such a way as to arrive at a price satisfactory to all concerned parties. The department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting in a matter consistent with the land claim agreements and negotiated co-operation agreements with the aboriginal development corporations.

Question No. 167—

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we just had an excellent piece of work done by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It came up with a report on how to improve the quality of life for our troops and for our veterans.

In fact the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I just opened a new centre that will provide one reference point for veterans and for troops who are injured or troops who are looking for additional information on how they can improve the quality of life for themselves and their families. We have some 89 recommendations that we are in the throes of implementing to improve the quality of life for all.

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we just gave, as of April 1 of this year, the highest pay increases in decades to the Canadian forces. We gave it to people primarily in the lower ranks. We also increased the allowances for foreign duty. We increased the allowances for the very people who are over there now in connection with our campaign in Kosovo.

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members that we had in fact an increase in the defence department budget this year. We had an increase because the government wanted to make sure that we treated our people properly and that they had a decent quality of life.

If we go back to the last election, it was not that long ago that party over there was advocating a further billion dollar cut to the budget.

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, they do have the tools that are needed to do the job.

We have made no decision. NATO has made no decision with respect to ground troops. We are sticking to the course on the air campaign. We are staying with that course. We are ultimately preparing when there is a ceasefire, when there is peace in Kosovo, to be able to move peacekeepers into that area.

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have the equipment that is necessary to do the job. I was just in Aviano. I have seen our equipment and our planes there.

Our Canadian forces personnel are doing a terrific job. They have the supplies that are necessary. The government is providing the funds that are necessary to make sure we do the job that needs to be done to try to give the people of Kosovo back their homeland.

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our Canadian forces do have the right equipment and will have the right equipment to use in this air campaign and in any other involvement they have with respect to Yugoslavia, including our peacekeepers who are being prepared for a peacekeeping mission when that time should come.

I have indicated quite clearly what the costs are to this point in time. I do not understand what part of $32 million or what part of $12 million the hon. member does not understand. Those are our costs.