David Anderson

[The Environment, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a number of questions there, but I will talk about the Kearl project.

There has been no final decision as to whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will issue Imperial Oil the authorization under the Fisheries Act for this project. Due process is being followed. It is not appropriate to speculate about that final decision, but the bottom line is that this project, like every other project, is going to have to meet the tough standards for the oil sands projects under our “Turning the corner” plan, which aims to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute 20% by 2020.

[The Environment, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister answered this question yesterday. As he pointed out, every environmental process and every regulation is being followed. The toughest standards are being set. Our environment minister has set some of the toughest standards on this planet and those are going to be met.

I reassure the House that this project is going to meet every one of those standards and our government is committed to protecting the environment as this project goes ahead.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary West for his hard work on this file, as so many other Conservative MPs have done.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been unwilling to release this survey even though it was done by David Herle, a prominent Liberal.

However, let me help set the record straight.

Mr. Hill said yesterday that 57% of western barley farmers want freedom. What the survey actually shows is that 57% of farmers want freedom for wheat. The number of farmers asking for marketing choice for barley is nearly 70%, as I said before. This is great news for farmers.

However, what farmers really want to know is when the Liberals will admit they are wrong and start supporting marketing freedom.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the member for Wascana has been so quiet the last few months on this issue. He knows better than the member for Malpeque that western Canadian farmers want freedom.

I will give the House the numbers. On barley, 25% want a completely open market and 45% want choice. That adds up to 70%, does it not? On wheat, 44% want a dual market and another 12% want a completely open market. That adds up to 56%.

We need freedom for western Canadian farmers and we need it now.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the member would get up today and ask a Wheat Board question because the big news in western Canada is that Canadian Wheat Board producers survey.

Yesterday Mr. Hill, the chair, said that 57% of producers supported barley freedom. He actually meant wheat freedom. The numbers for barley are 70%. Three-quarters of western Canadian farmers are asking for freedom.

That survey was done by David Herle, a friend of the member for Wascana and a former Liberal campaign manager.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly will not interfere with the provinces' decisions on their energy mix, but Canada is an emerging energy superpower and we are committed to ensuring it becomes a clean energy superpower.

In our government, we have focused on the priorities to really make a difference in these areas, including things like cleaning up conventional energy, adding clean renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency, and nuclear energy is certainly one of the options in that mix.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to respond. It is good that the member used his time to ask us questions, but I do want to talk about AECL because we have been, as he said, transparent. We have been apolitical and we have been very public about what we are doing. I think he knows that. I think he is perhaps just trying to confuse people a bit.

Clearly, in budget 2008 we recognized that nuclear energy and specifically the Candu technology is an important component of the programs that we are developing internationally and domestically. The minister has been more than clear about the fact that he is committed to restoring prudent management of the nuclear energy file after years of neglect by the previous government. Everyone knows that.

He announced a full review of AECL last fall as part of that changeover to responsible management of the crown corporation. The review of AECL is ongoing and all options are on the table. No decision has been made on that yet. I think everyone is aware of that as well. His department is working closely with the other departments, the Department of Finance and with the full collaboration of AECL.

I should point out that everyone who has been following this file also understands that National Bank Financial has been hired as financial adviser to the government and is currently preparing its first report on the financial position of AECL. Therefore, there is a review ongoing. There has been a financial report that has been developed about AECL. Management has been updated. In the coming months the government is going to have the results of those reviews and will gladly release them. The member knows these things, but the Canadian public needs to understand that he has been well aware of them as well.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, those structures, for the most part, are already in place. The public has access. It is an open process in terms of understanding what is going on.

As I have mentioned a couple of times, the CNSC has been given the responsibility for overseeing the safety of nuclear installations in Canada. It has clear guidelines and directions as to what needs to happen in these facilities. I think we saw some of that previously this year in terms of the things that it demands from the installations themselves.

I do not think it is fair for the member to even consider that we can compare with Chernobyl because our technology is completely different. We have decades of safety and safe operation behind us. It is not the same technology at all. For him to be even comparing the two is not realistic.

AECL is developing new technologies and, obviously, the technologies are becoming safer as the procedures are becoming more demanding. We are willing to work with that.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that Bill C-5 deals with a number of these issues in terms of providing the environment we need to ensure the nuclear environment in this country is safe.

The bill would bring compensation into line with internationally accepted compensation levels. It would expand the categories of things that are compensatory. It would improve the compensation procedures. It puts in a number of procedures that would make it much easier for people to make claims in the event of an incident. It would increase the financial liability of financial operators. On that side, Bill C-5 would put a very strong framework in place for Canadians.

On the other side, in terms of AECL, this government has provided extra resources to AECL. We have also undertaken a review of AECL and its role in Canada. As was mentioned by my colleague earlier, we have provided extra resources for cleanups and those kinds of things.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has been given the resources that it needs to do its job, which is to supervise the safety of our nuclear installations in Canada. We believe it now has adequate resources to do that job.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas there which I could talk about for some time. I will try to make it short so other people have an opportunity to ask questions.

Clearly, in the development of the bill and the changes to the Nuclear Liability Act, there was an examination of what would happen in the unlikely event there was any sort of an incident in this country. There was a study of what level of compensation needed to be put in place in order to deal with whatever situation might arise. The former amount was $75 million. It was felt that $650 million was a good requirement in order to cover any incident that may occur in this country. That is why that number was picked. It is a practical number which, after studies, debate and discussion about what liability would exist, it was felt would cover more than adequately any event that would take place in this country.