Ralph Goodale

[Nuclear Waste, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are now on to number 20.

The fact is that the testing that may be undertaken later this year is fully within the regulatory authority and the regulatory licence afforded to AECL. It is covered within the financial arrangements provided to AECL. If there were to be a commercial program pursued after that, one of the conditions that I referred to generically in my first answer is that it would have to be on a commercial basis with no subsidization by the Government of Canada.

[Nuclear Waste, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is now the 19th time I have responded to the details of this question.

If there were to be a commercial MOX proposal, that would go forward. In addition to a number of other conditions that would need to be satisfied, all relevant environmental, health and safety regulations in Canada, whether federal or provincial, would have to be fully satisfied. On a scientific basis the waste that would be created by this MOX product is less than the more conventional product.

[Plutonium Imports, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, now for the 18th time.

If there is any decision to be taken that goes beyond the mere testing that is already covered by the licensing at Chalk River, there would be a full public review that would cover all environmental, health and safety requirements as provided in either federal or provincial law.

[Plutonium Imports, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the testing of a minute amount of MOX material is already well covered within the licensing authority of the Chalk River lab.

If the project should go any distance beyond that, it would require a full public environmental review. We have said that now at least 17 times.

[The Environment, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we received no request to participate in the MOX program. We have not yet conducted any feasibility testing that would come within the licence of the Chalk River laboratory. If we were to proceed, there would be full, open and transparent proceedings under relevant federal and provincial law with respect to the protection of the environment, health and safety. We would also ensure that there is no subsidization involved on the part of Canada and that the process, if it is to go forward at all many years into the future is conducted with complete safety in Canada.

[Nuclear Waste, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may be confusing two things. With respect to the testing of a minute amount of MOX fuel, that is already covered under the existing licence of the Chalk River facilities. If there should be any consideration in the future to a full MOX program in Canada it would require not only those successful tests, but also the complete environmental review of the proposal in compliance with all federal and provincial laws to ensure that all environmental health and safety factors in the country are taken into account.

[Grain, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the grain trading relationship between Canada and China stretches back over 40 years. It has involved during that period of time over 110 million tonnes of Canadian wheat exports based upon a very strong and effective working relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board and the extraordinarily high quality of grain produced by Canadian farmers.

I am pleased to confirm that yesterday I joined with Chinese Trade Minister Shi to witness the signing of a new memorandum of agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and the China national cereals import corporation. For Canada the value of this transaction is estimated at more than $100 million.

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I was referring to the elected people that the organizers had indicated to us were acceptable. I gather on other occasions they had also indicated that deputy ministers might be suitable substitutes.

The point is not really to argue about the substance of any particular meeting. The point is to develop a program that will provide meaningful assistance to Canadian farmers struggling with a difficult situation. That is why the government has put $900 million on the table.

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the organizers of the rally had indicated that ministers were their preference to attend the meeting. Unfortunately, neither the minister of agriculture nor myself was available on the particular day that they had chosen. In fact both of us were working on other fronts to defend the interests of farmers, the minister of agriculture on his way to Japan and myself in Washington.

I understand that on other occasions the organizers had indicated that deputies were acceptable replacements, but in fact I was referring to the elected part of the government.

[Radioactive Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the intention of the government that the utilities that essentially create the waste material should be responsible for its disposal.

According to Seaborn, about 87% of that waste comes from Ontario Hydro, about 6% comes from New Brunswick Power, about 5% comes from Hydro Quebec and about 2% from the research operations at AECL.

We have invited the utilities to work on the development of the appropriate waste management authority and it would seem that it would reflect the proportionate shares of the problem.