Anne McLellan

[Committees Of The House, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled "Canada: A Model Forest Nation in the Making".

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yes, 40,000 becquerels per litre is the regulated standard for drinking water and corresponds to 10 per cent of the legal public dose limit of 5 millisieverts per year. Even if a person's water supply through a whole year were to be at 40,000 becquerels per litre, the radiation dose to that individual would be less than the current dose limit for members of the public. It would also be below the reduced limit that is recommended by international authorities.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), tritium emissions from the waste site at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Chalk River plant do migrate to some degree within a radius of50 kilometres of the plant. However, tritium emission limits are set so that hypothetical doses to the public are always well below the regulatory limits set by the Atomic Energy Control Board. In practice, nuclear facilities do not operate anywhere near their emission limits and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Chalk River plant is no exception. The tritium releases from the plant are well below the regulatory limits.

In response to (b), local drinking water is monitored for tritium and the levels observed, being very much less than regulatory limits for the public, are considered safe. Daily samplings are collected at the Pembroke main water supply intake and these are measured monthly to confirm that releases are a small fraction of the regulatory limits.

In response to (c), yes, the radioactive waste disposal site is safely insulated. It is located well inside the plant boundary and is not accessible to the public. The releases of tritium from this site are well below the regulatory limit.

In response to (d), the radioactive waste site is safe and poses no undue risk to humans.

Question No. 73-

[Forestry Development, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply reiterate that my department and I have been in discussions with the woodlot owners from eastern Quebec over the past 10 months.

As I have already indicated this afternoon, the minister for regional development for Quebec and I will be meeting with the woodlot owners. We are very aware of the importance of the issue for eastern Quebec and we will be working on options for the future.

[Forestry Development, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec and I will be meeting with eastern woodlot owners, municipal development corporations and representations from that region on Monday, October 31.

[Mil Davie Shipyards, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the federal government has no intention of involving itself in the day to day management of the Hibernia project.

However, if my hon. friend would like to discuss with the Hibernia management consortium the reasons for its decision in relation to moving part of that contract, not the entire $35 million contract, to the Saint John shipyard, I will be happy to provide him with a name after question period.

[Mil Davie Shipyards, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the hon. member the process by which that decision was taken. It was a decision of the Hibernia management board. That board is one on which the federal government has one representative out of five. That is by virtue of our 8.5 per cent equity interest in the Hibernia project.

The federal government does not have the intention of micromanaging projects like Hibernia. The decision was a day to day management decision taken by a properly authorized board.

[Hibernia Project, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me try and answer at least some of the hon. member's allegations.

There are many indicators at this point that we will receive a reasonable rate of return on our investment. I suggest the member look at a recent Wood Gundy report which indicates that we will enjoy a reasonable rate of return on our investment as will all consortium members.

Let me suggest to the hon. member that when he talks about shipyards that he is referring to a recent contractual issue involving Vinland shipyards and Saint John shipyards.

I think many in this country, including my colleagues from New Brunswick, would be somewhat surprised to hear that the hon. member does not believe that the Saint John shipyard, one of the finest shipyards in the world in terms of instrumentation and electrical abilities, is qualified to participate in this contract.

[Hibernia Project, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Let me assure the hon. member that this government believes that the Hibernia project is viable and that we anticipate a reasonable and fair rate of return on our investment as do all consortium members.

Let me suggest that the hon. member should appreciate that we in the Government of Canada define value in a number of different ways, only one of which is rate of return. I should remind the hon. member that many jobs have been created and many contracts have been let, many of those in the province of Quebec. Over half a billion dollars worth of benefits have gone to the province of Quebec.

We are building infrastructure. We are building a new source of energy security in this country. Therefore, I suggest that Hibernia on all counts is a valuable project for the long term prosperity of this country.

[Regional Development, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me say in defence of my colleague the minister responsible for regional development for Quebec that indeed a meeting was planned and due to my schedule that meeting had to be cancelled. We are in the process of organizing yet another meeting with the private woodlot owners.