Herb Dhaliwal

[The Environment, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being in Montreal to open the conference on the global program of action on how we deal with land based activities that cause pollution in our waters. This is something that came out of Rio.

Canada is working very hard to make sure that we play our part. We have three oceans that touch our country. Protecting our oceans is a priority. We will be there fully supporting the conference. A hundred countries have come together to see how, as a global community, we can do a better job of protecting our oceans and marine environment.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of that particular wharf. Of course I am always looking for new money for wharves. There is always a big demand. I am sure the finance minister will look into that in his budget because there is always a demand.

In regard to this particular situation, as the hon. member knows, there was a fire at that Two Rivers wharf and this obviously complicated the situation.

I want to assure the hon. member that no final decision has been made. His representation will be taken seriously and I will review the matter closely.

[Fisheries, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member because it is difficult to get a fisheries question these days.

I am happy to report to the House on something that we have been working on since 1995. We have learned that the 30th country has signed the United Nations fisheries agreement to make it effective December 11.

Those of us who worked on this know what a tremendous achievement this is for Canada and the international community to ensure that we can manage our fish stocks in international waters with conservation and rules and regulations that we can abide by. This is a great success for all Canadians.

[Question No. 77, November 21st, 2001]

(a) In the mid-1990’s the federal government’s program review exercise concluded that the Canadian Coast Guard’s CCG dredging program in commercial channels was a non-core activity. The government’s decision to withdraw from dredging was also based in part on the 1995 recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport. This decision was made on a national level and applies to waterways across the country. Accordingly, the CCG is not funded to provide maintenance dredging in commercial channels except in the international waterways of the Great Lakes where Canada has a commitment to the United States. As part of the withdrawal of dredging services on the Red River, the CCG is reviewing the options regarding the two river retaining walls at the mouth of the river.

(b) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the two river retaining walls at the mouth of the Red River. These structures were built to help reduce the rate of sedimentation in the shipping channel. The retaining walls are in a deteriorated condition and are at risk of becoming a hazard to navigation. The department is examining the possibility of removing the structures or part of the structures in the interest of safety. An environmental assessment of this proposal is underway. The department has also undertaken a study to identify the impact that removing the walls would have on the habitat of fish species living in the vicinity of the wall. The study will also identify mitigation measures.

(c) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering divesting a number of its marine structures where interested parties can be identified. Divestiture of the retaining walls in the Red River could be an option to their removal, if there is interest. This possibility will be examined before a decision is made to remove the walls.

[Fisheries, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for giving me notice on this issue.

As the hon. member knows, the snow crab licensing is very good. What has happened is we have issued temporary licences to 2,400 inshore fishermen so they can take advantage of the fishery.

If the licences are made permanent, we have to ensure that they can fish for the long term so we do not have the situation where the Government of Canada once again spends hundreds of millions of dollars to buy back those licences. This is an area I am looking at. A study has been conducted and we are looking at it closely. However, we have to make sure that the fishery is there for the long term so they can take advantage of the fishery.

[Search and Rescue, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the opposition making all sorts of allegations. When we look into those allegations we find the facts are totally incorrect and they put them out without any foundation. I will endeavour to look into the facts that the hon. member has stated to make sure.

As I said earlier, we invested $115 million in new funds to make sure that the coast guard has the resources. Every single day it saves Canadian lives. It is unfortunate the hon. member twists the facts into something different from what they really are.

[Search and Rescue, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for congratulating the excellent work of the people in the coast guard in this situation. Every single day coast guard men and women respond to emergencies such as the hon. member talked about.

I am certainly not aware of the statement the hon. member mentioned with regard to the helicopter. I will take it upon myself to look into the matter. I have not been made aware of it. However, I can assure everyone that we have more resources than we did before. In fact $115 million of new resources have been put into the coast guard.

[National Security, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not been following what has been happening in the coast guard. In fact the finance minister provided just last year $115 million to the coast guard to make sure that we can do the job.

The hon. member should spend more time reading the budgets and following closely instead of asking us questions before he has done his research.

[National Security, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that we have adopted the same regulation as the U.S. in that all ships that come to Canadian ports are now required to provide 96 hours' notice, not 24 hours as in the past, so we can provide better security on our waters. This is a substantial increase and is very consistent with what the U.S. is doing.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Peace River. It is obvious from his comments that he has not been following what Canada has been doing in terms of our border.

In fact , the hon. member probably is not aware of the blueprint on customs which was done some two and a half or three years ago when I was Minister of National Revenue. We wanted to use technologies at our borders, use our resources in the high risk areas and make sure that we worked with the Americans. Of course to do that we need to work with partnerships. We need to make sure the Americans also are on board so we can talk about protocols.

The business community has worked on this and has said that 40% of all the trade across our border is done with 100 companies. We were working on a protocol so that those companies, after their drivers had gone through security clearance, could drive across our borders, thereby improving the movement of goods and services across the border.

The hon. member also knows we had the Canpass which put people through a security check. Once their security was approved and once they were considered very low risk, they could move back and forth across our border. The problem was the Canpass only worked one way. One of the things in which I was very much involved was to have a common pass. The Americans had Instapass and we had Canpass. I wanted to have a common criteria so we could work together with the Americans.

A lot of work was done on that. I visited my colleagues in the states to work together in partnership. Our border system was made pre-free trade and we had to move to post-free trade so that we could have protocols, use technologies and improve the movement of goods and services across the border. Unfortunately at that time the Americans were not as motivated as we were to adopt some of these new technologies, to move forward, to sign agreements and to sign protocols so that we truly could have movement of goods and services.

It is obvious that members on that side of the House and the hon. member have not been following this. He has not watched what has been going on. If he wanted go back we could give him the material that was completed. We would be happy to give him more documents.

Has the member looked at the blueprint for customs that was done some two and a half years ago? That is exactly what it talks about; the movement of goods and services across the border.