Christian Paradis

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the use of a natural fish-bearing water body for tailings and waste rock disposal can only be authorized when it has been determined that there are no other reasonable alternatives and when certain conditions are met, including the development and implementation of compensation measures to ensure that there is no net loss of fish habitat associated with the creation of the proposed tailings impoundment area. Such compensation is a regulatory requirement of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations and it must be determined that it is possible to compensate in order for the amendments to proceed.

No decision can be made on the initiation of the MMER amendment process until the completion of the federal environmental assessment process for the Prosperity Project. Given the potential for environmental effects and the need for full public participation, the Prosperity Project was referred to a review by a federal panel on January 19, 2009 which represents the highest level of environmental assessment.

[Shale Gas, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to answering. It is odd to hear about unpublicized documents, when they are documents that were obtained through the Access to Information Act. Everything is there; the documents are already public.

I also asked experts from the Geological Survey of Canada whether they could provide additional information on what is going on in Quebec. I have spoken with my counterpart in Quebec. It is clear that we need information in order to raise the level of public debate, and the Geological Survey of Canada will certainly do its part.

[Government Communications, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not muzzling anyone. The previous Liberal government adopted a policy on government communications in 2002, and we improved that policy in 2006. We expanded the transparency criteria, in particular regarding marketing and public opinion research. These are false accusations, as my colleague knows very well.

We have been perfectly clear about the fact that we want to communicate, and it is only logical that the minister should be the main spokesperson for the department.

[Offshore Drilling, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to hear the member discredit the National Energy Board, which has a track record of 50 years. President Obama suspended the Minerals Management Service to get where we are now. We have world-class regulations, and there will be no project approved unless we are convinced of the safety of the workers and that the environment will be protected.

[Offshore Drilling, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on May 11, the National Energy Board announced that it will review its entire regulations, and the public will be invited. This is what we learned last week. The public will be invited to submit recommendations.

We enforce world-class standards. Let us be clear: Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they are convinced that the security of the workers and the protection of the environment are ensured.

[Shell Canada, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of nonsense, does my colleague believe that the government can invent a buyer, especially when the NDP scares off buyers by smearing fossil fuels? We are pleased that an improved offer has been made and we hope there will be an agreement. My colleague should instead look at the statements about Israel made by the deputy leader of his party. That is shameful and that is what he should focus on.

[Shell Canada, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it was the union that said it applauded the efforts of government instances in this matter. I would remind the House that we have nothing to learn from that party, which considers oil to be a poison. It would like to have airplanes fly with renewable energy, as though that were possible right now. It believes that oil is poison and nothing can be done with it. However, when it comes to saving a refinery, it asks the government to do something and take action. That is a complete contradiction.

[Shell Canada, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows and he cannot deny it, that from the start the workers have been happy with all levels of government involved in this file. The offer has been increased. That is good news. We hope that all sides can come to an agreement so that the jobs can be saved.

[Shell Canada, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who lives quite close to there, should have talked to the union representatives who have said, time and time again, that they are very happy with the efforts by all levels of government trying to save these jobs.

I understand that a better offer has been tabled. We hope that the parties can come to an agreement.

[Offshore Drilling, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, offshore drilling in Newfoundland is regulated by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, an independent body.

This board announced on May 12 that it would tighten evaluation criteria for future projects, response plans and emergency plans, and it has done just that.

Once again, I am appalled that my colleague is trying to discredit independent boards that are credible and have a very solid record.