Anne McLellan

[Mining Industry, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We are a government that acknowledges that primary jurisdiction over mining rests with the provinces. However, we are also a government that acknowledges the increasing globalization of the mining industry and consequently there is a role for the federal government as it relates to the mining industry.

Industry respects that, most provinces and environmental stakeholders respect that position.

The issue of regulatory reform was specifically raised, avoiding regulatory overlap and duplication. I was very pleased to receive the final report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, of which the hon. member is a member. My department and I will be reviewing that report. The hon. member knows that we responded to the interim report. We are working with departments such as fisheries and oceans, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and others.

Our goal is shared by the hon. member, to ensure an efficient regulatory regime for this important sector of our economy.

[Tokamak Project, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me reiterate that fusion research is not a priority for this government.

Let me on a more positive note remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor that is sold we create over 4,000 person years of employment in the province of Quebec, primarily in the area of Montreal.

Let me remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor we sell we spend over $150 million in the Montreal area, in its economy.

In fact, by repriorizing the activities of AECL in terms of selling CANDU reactors in the export market we are directly contributing to the economy of Montreal and Quebec.

[Tokamak Project, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I have told the hon. member a number of times in this House, very difficult decisions have had to be made during the exercise of program review and returning fiscal order to the books of the nation. AECL has not been immune from these very difficult exercises.

As I have explained to the hon. member on a number of occasions, fusion research is not a priority for this government. Therefore when we have to make tough fiscal decisions, we have to decide what our priorities are and we have decided. I think the hon. member understands the reasons why we made the decision we made.

[Forestry, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada is one of the world's leading forestry nations. As such, all forestry stakeholders take their environmental responsibilities very seriously.

A recent example of this responsibility is an industry driven initiative undertaken in conjunction with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a new sustainable forest management standard.

These standards were recently approved by the Standards Council of Canada. They will subject the forestry industry to a rigorous, scientifically technical standard in relation to sustainable forestry management. They will also be subject to independent third party audits.

This is another example of how we are maintaining our position as one of the world's leading forestry nations.

[Asbestos, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that the federal government is pursuing this issue very vigorously with its trading partners, with the province of Quebec and with the asbestos industry.

Let me remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister wrote to his counterpart, Mr. Alain Juppé, on October 6. As a result of that letter, today in fact we have a panel of Canadian experts in France providing scientific information and background to the French in terms of our policy on controlled or safe use of asbestos.

Let me also remind the hon. member that it was the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1983 who signed a 10 year, $15 million agreement to establish the Asbestos Institute that has pursued scientific inquiry into the safe use of asbestos and developed new asbestos products.

I would hope the hon. member sees that this government has had a long history of commitment to the asbestos industry in Quebec.

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in fact the crown corporation AECL has not closed its office in the city of Montreal. In fact, it retains an office in that city. I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is because of AECL and the sale of Candu reactors that there is a nuclear industry, a private sector industry, that employs thousands of people in the Montreal area.

[Asbestos, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I reassure the hon. member that the federal government has an aggressive strategy in relation to the asbestos issue which we are pursuing in partnership with a number of other key stakeholders, including the province of Quebec.

A few weeks ago I took the opportunity to meet with my Quebec counterpart. She and I determined that the best approach was a co-operative partnership. We are now in the process of developing that partnership.

My colleague the Minister for International Trade has made representations to many foreign governments, including France. My colleague the Minister of Health has intervened with his colleague the French Minister of Health to ensure that the record is clear in relation to the accurate and true medical and health facts surrounding the use of asbestos.

Yesterday it was with great pleasure that I announced that my department will be providing $500,000 to the Asbestos Institute to continue a research program in relation to the controlled and safe use of substances.

[Fuel Imports, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that any decision in relation to the importation of MOX fuel is a very long way off.

Feasibility studies are presently being done in relation to the possible use of MOX fuel in Candu reactors. If it proves feasible then obviously there still has to be a decision made by the United States or perhaps Russia as to whether they choose the Candu as an option for disposal.

In relation to the hon. member's specific question, let me reassure him that all relevant federal and provincial environmental health and safety assessment processes and licensing processes will be followed. Many of those processes involve full opportunity for the public to participate and to offer its point of view.

Let me reassure the hon. member that the public will have ample opportunity for input into any final decision-

[National Energy Board, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue and that is in relation to funding for intervenor landowners before the National Energy Board at pipeline facility hearings.

As the hon. member knows, I instructed the National Energy Board to look at non-legislative means by which financial assistance could be provided to landowner intervenors. The NEB undertook that report. It reported to me earlier this year. I asked it to make the report public and seek comments. It is in the process of doing that.

The interest has been so great in this issue that the NEB has had to extend the period for public comment twice. However, I hope to receive the report later this year.

In addition, I should tell the hon. member that I have been working with the pipeline association and I have asked it to consider a voluntary pilot project in which it might provide funding for intervenors.

[Churchill Falls, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it seems to me that the contradiction here is between the expressed position of the Reform Party and what it is now saying.

We respect the jurisdiction of the provinces over their natural resources. The provinces have the ability to enter into contracts in relation to the sale and disposition of those natural resources.