Bill Graham

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my main concerns. The state of Vermont has two processes in place. We will have the opportunity to be present to express our views.

Our colleagues, the hon. members for Compton—Stanstead and Brome—Missisquoi, are directly involved in this exercise. They spoke to Vermont authorities. We are in contact with American authorities. Therefore, we will have the opportunity to explain our position before the appropriate U.S. authorities.

If this is not satisfactory, or if we do not have the opportunity to be heard properly, there is of course the joint commission, but it is always a last resort.

I urge the hon. member to give the process that is in place a chance to work. I am convinced that justice will prevail under the existing process.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer the important questions asked regarding the landfill site enlargement project in Coventry, Vermont. Some facts have to be recognized.

The member knows very well that this project is currently subject to an approval process that is open to public discussion. The first of the two processes undertaken by the State of Vermont will be the Act 250 Process. This review of the landfill enlargement project is currently under way. The Vermont Solid Waste Management Program is also planning an independent review, a technical review process, that should be open to the public for observation purposes at the latest this spring.

Vermont officials have assured us that the comments made by Quebec will receive the same consideration as the ones made in Vermont. I should point out that up to now, the Memphrémagog regional county municipality has been involved in the process and is considering asking for party status. This would give the municipality all possible privileges, including the right to appeal once a decision has been reached. If such a request should be made, other hearings would be held to consider its concerns.

My colleagues, the members for Compton—Stanstead and Brome—Missisquoi, are greatly interested in this matter and, with citizens from the region, even went to Vermont to state their point of view. They have been very active in this case through solid actions, not just words.

The concerns expressed by the members and their constituents are valid and serious and we have raised them with our American counterparts. Officials from my department are in constant contact with officials from the Government of Vermont, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the State Department, in order to obtain more information on the expansion project and to get across the concerns of Canadians.

In the past, concerns had been raised about an unlined landfill near the Black River wetlands. The landfill was closed in 1992; nonetheless, low levels of contamination were recorded. Accordingly, the State of Vermont proposed transferring the waste to a lined landfill.

This expansion project will be located on soil that is more suitable for such a landfill. We have received technical documents on the project that Environment Canada is currently reviewing. The Quebec Department of the Environment is also in contact with the State of Vermont in order to discuss this project.

Given the good cooperation and the open process initiated by the State of Vermont, we do not believe it would be appropriate at this time to bring this case before the International Joint Commission. Referrals to the commission are usually made as a last resort in order to resolve an issue that cannot be resolved bilaterally or through local processes. If Canadians' concerns are not taken into consideration, other options, including the possibility of a referral to the commission, will have to be examined.

I must add that, to date, referrals to the commission have always been made jointly by the parties, although it is possible to make them individually. That is another reason why we are continuing to discuss the matter with our American colleagues.

For now, I assure hon. members that we are very active. This is not the time to bring this matter before the International Joint Commission. Currently, the appropriate methods and local processes are in place and we will await the results.

[Middle East, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the Prime Minister was quite clear. Our position has not changed. Our position has never changed.

We believe that the road map is the best way to resolve this issue. An agreement between the two parties involved in this tragic disagreement is essential to a long-term solution. That has always been Canada's position, and we will continue to support the two parties so they can negotiate between themselves a settlement to this terrible problem.

[Foreign Affairs, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, appointments of heads of mission are always subject to certain administrative procedures, which in this case have not been completed. Until they are completed, the position is that Mr. Liddar is not being sent to Chandigarh.

[The Environment, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we have worked with our American cousins on international water issues, we have worked together. Thus, we are maintaining our method of working first with the Americans. If that does not produce the desired results, we can move to other solutions, namely the joint commission. Let us do the necessary work. I assure the hon. member that we are dealing with this matter very seriously and that we shall continue to do so.

[The Environment, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, of course, as the members of this House know very well, the International Joint Commission is just that, a joint commission. In order for it to examine an issue, both parties must agree.

I can assure the House that we are following this situation closely. I have already raised the issue with our American colleagues. If the joint commission finds it appropriate to consider this matter, I can assure the House that we shall follow up on it properly with the American government.

[Foreign Affairs, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are seeing a return of the Sea-Doo on Lake Okanagan. That is what we are seeing in the House today.

We often have empty places in our ambassadorial corps. We have a perfectly good chargé d'affaires in Denmark who is doing a very good job of representing Canada. In due time that post will be filled.

In the meantime, I can assure the House and all hon. members that we are telling Denmark clearly Hans Island is Canada's, and we will continue to do that.

[Foreign Affairs, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about shots across bows here, but let us make sure we have our aim straight before we start shooting.

This is a matter that has been discussed between Denmark and Canada for years. This is a matter which we have discussed and Canada's sovereignty over Hans Island has been well established by us. It is established in international law. We have told the Danes that. Clearly they have a different approach.

We are working with them. They are an ally with us on many other issues. We will work with them to resolve this issue, but I can assure this House that this government will not surrender any sovereignty of any of Canada's lands in the Arctic or anywhere else in the world.

[National Security, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if it will help the hon. member, I can inform him that as of February of this year, the passport office began to input lost and stolen passport data directly into the RCMP database, thereby enabling law enforcement officials and authorized government departments and agencies to have 24/7 access to lost and stolen passport data.

An agreement to provide this information to front line officers is now in place and we will make sure that everybody has the information that is necessary to ensure our passports are properly monitored.

[National Security, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could repeat, for the benefit of the hon. member, what I said in response to an earlier question. We appreciate the Auditor General's report but we have taken action already to address every one of her concerns. Reports of lost passports go straight to the police and are deactivated. No stolen or lost passport can be travelled on. It is not valid for international travel. All stolen or blank passports are immediately communicated to the police.

We have dealt with these issues. The government and the department treats these issues very seriously. We will make sure the Canadian passport is the best and most secure travel document in the world.