Ralph Goodale

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the facility at Pinawa has provided very useful research activity over the year with respect to a variety of important initiatives. It is obviously going through a period of transition.

We have provided some adjustment tools through Natural Resources Canada and through the department of western diversification to ease the transition as AECL reduces its level of activity at Pinawa.

In terms of the future, there is I believe a provincial government law that would establish the prohibition to which the hon. gentleman refers.

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we said in response to the Seaborn recommendations that it is fully the responsibility of the utilities and the other owners and producers of the waste in Canada for the waste management organization.

We also said in our response to Seaborn that that is subject to federal oversight and regulatory provisions, including if necessary the implementation of new legislation to make absolutely sure that the waste management organization discharges its responsibilities in the public interest.

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble and the allegations in the hon. gentleman's question is a crock of horse feathers. The facts of the matter are that we had a comprehensive environmental study conducted by Seaborn, we have responded in detail to that report by Seaborn, and that is based upon full, open, transparent, public consultation in the public interest.

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again the premise to the question is totally misplaced. The policy framework announced by this government two or three years ago clearly acknowledged that the financial responsibility should rest properly with those who create the waste, the owners and the producers of the waste. That is where the burden should fall, not on the taxpayers of Canada.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated many times in the House both by her words and her actions, the commitment of the government to the aboriginal people of the country is full and with no strings attached.

With respect to the issue having to do with the proper management of nuclear fuel waste in the country, we have an elaborate report from Seaborn. We have the government's response to that. It is predicated upon full, open, public consultation, including with aboriginal people, and that is what we are proceeding to accomplish. No decision has been taken with respect to any sites or dumps.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the premise to the hon. member's question is completely false.

In response to the Seaborn report we indicated that we would be pursuing a process of consultation with aboriginal peoples as Seaborn recommended. In fact those aboriginal organizations have asked for that consultation in writing and we are proceeding to respond to them.

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in our response to the Seaborn report we agreed with the vast majority of Seaborn's recommendations. He did recommend a waste management authority that would be in the nature of a federal crown corporation.

It was our view in the response that we published last December that the ownership responsibility for that waste belongs with those who produced it. Accordingly we believe it is more appropriate if the responsibility for the agency rests with the producers and the owners of the waste, subject explicitly to the oversight and regulatory authority of the Government of Canada.

[Canadian Farmers, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this particular weekend the minister of agriculture was leaving for a trade mission to Japan. In my own case, I was in Washington on Saturday talking with Canadian embassy officials about access to U.S. grain markets for Canadian grain supplies and heading off additional trade disputes.

The organizers of the committee made it absolutely clear that the only persons who would be acceptable in terms of representing the government would be the minister of agriculture or myself. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, both of us were fighting for farmers elsewhere.

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations in the gentleman's preamble are absolutely and plainly false.

The document that is the government's policy is the December 3 response to the Seaborn report. It lays out an extensive pattern of consultation by me, by my department, by the government and by the waste disposal agency. It is all there in a very public, open and transparent way. That is the government's policy. The gentleman and CTV News are wrong.

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, in making reference to the report by CTV News, is simply and plainly wrong.

The government's policy with respect to this matter was announced on December 3 in our response to the Seaborn report. The Seaborn report was the culmination of 10 years of investigation on this question.

We have laid out our way forward which involves both immediate and long term consultations. The document is there on the Internet and it has been there since December 3.