House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was air.

Topics

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations
Routine Proceedings

November 3rd, 2005 / 10:05 a.m.

Parkdale—High Park
Ontario

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women and Minister responsible for Industry (Women Entrepreneurs)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 51st Commonwealth parliamentary conference that was held in Nadi, Fiji, from September 1 to September 10.

Interparliamentary Delegations
Routine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Richmond Hill
Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group respecting its participation in the second General Assembly of Interparliamentarians for Social Service held in Seoul, Korea August 24 to 28, 2005.

I might say that at that conference I was re-elected international vice-president of the organization.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

In accordance with order of reference on Thursday, March 24, your committee has considered Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, and agreed on Tuesday, November 1, to report it with amendments.

Canadian Ballast Water Management Act
Routine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan York—Simcoe, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, An Act to provide for the management of ballast water in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to put in place mandatory ballast water management controls and thereby provide real protection against aquatic invasive species that threaten the delicate ecosystems of our inland lakes and waterways.

The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney was a leader in introducing the very first guidelines. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has fallen behind and has failed to act for 12 years.

As time has passed, new invasive species, like the round gobi and the quagga mussel, have been introduced to Lake Simcoe's watershed threatening its environment. It is my hope that the pressure brought by this bill will embarrass the government to act, as it now can, to introduce mandatory regulations.

Our environment is too important to be sacrificed by an indecisive government afraid to offend big shipping interests. Now is the time for action to protect the environment and the delicate ecosystem balance of Lake Simcoe and the entire Great Lakes Basin. It is our obligation to our families, our communities and to the generations to come.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Bill S-38
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent that the House proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill S-38, the spirits trade bill, as the first government order this morning.

Bill S-38
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?

Bill S-38
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents in Kingston, Ontario who call upon Parliament to pay attention to the situation of two objectors to the American war in Iraq who have sought refuge in Canada.

They recall the actions of Canada in giving refuge to objectors to the Vietnam War and call upon the Canadian government and Parliament to demonstrate its commitment to international law and treaties, to which it is a signatory, by making provision for U.S. war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 177, 178, 180, 182 and 199.

Question No. 177
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton—Melville, SK

Since 1995, with regard to the Restricted Weapons Registration System, the Canadian Firearms Registry and the Canadian Firearms Information System: ( a ) how many successful firearms traces have been performed; ( b ) how many successful firearms traces linked crime scenes to the accused; and ( c ) how many of the registered owners of these firearms were charged for the crime committed with their firearm and/or for knowingly providing the firearm used in the crime?

Question No. 177
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Etobicoke North
Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows:

a) The RCMP National Firearms Tracing Unit has processed the following number of tracing requests: (Does not include traces performed by the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit managed by the OPP in Ontario)

The RCMP does not keep statistics on the outcome of a trace—it is up to the client if they wish to do so. The Firearms Tracing Unit is responsible only for tracing a firearm for clients (both RCMP and non-RCMP) within Canada, the United States and, where possible, internationally. Once the trace results are provided to the client, it is the client’s responsibility to pursue the investigation and lay charges if applicable. Each individual client would have to search their own records management system to identify the success of investigations where a firearms trace had been provided by the Firearms Tracing Unit.

b) and c) The National Tracing Center is a support unit and is not directly involved in investigations. The Tracing Center does not track the success of ongoing investigations by the agency of jurisdiction. As indicated above, the National Firearms Tracing Unit does not have information related to these two questions

Question No. 178
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on June 16, 2005, that “since December 1, 1998, more than 13,500 individual firearm licences have been refused or revoked. The program is accessed over 2,000 times a day by front line police officers”: ( a ) how many of the firearms licences were refused or revoked because the person had committed criminal offences, were placed under prohibition orders, restraining orders, bail conditions, and/or committed other violent acts that were reported to police; ( b ) how many firearms licences were refused or revoked because of the information provided by the applicant on the licence application; ( c ) how does the program track the addresses of these 13,500 now too-dangerous-to-own-firearms persons once their firearms licences have been refused or revoked; ( d ) how does the Minister know that the program is actually being accessed by “front line police officers”; ( e ) what specific types of information in the system are actually being accessed and accessed most often by police; and ( f ) how many times per day do the police actually get information from the system compared to not-in-the-system responses?

Question No. 178
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Etobicoke North
Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows:

a) (i) Criminal offences and/or other violent acts are considered along with other public safety factors in evaluating the eligibility of an applicant for a firearms licence; however these are not specifically identified as the sole reason for refusal or revocation of a firearms licence.

(ii) From 1998 to December 31, 2004, 5,893 licences were refused while 8,104 licences were revoked

1

. Factors leading to a refusal (538) or revocation (2,518) of a firearms licence in 2004 included:

Beginning in 2004, chief firearms officers, CFOs, can report in the Canadian Firearms Information System, CFIS, all of the factors that cause the refusal of an application or the revocation of a licence; for this reason, total percentages are greater than 100%. Prior to this date, CFOs only reported a single reason per decision.

b) The information provided by a licence applicant is one of several factors considered in evaluating the eligibility of an applicant for a firearms licence. Firearms licences are considered for revocation using current information from continuous eligibility checking along with information provided on the original application. In 2004, approximately 1% of refusals and 10% of revocations were due to the provision of false information

1

c) The Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, does not track address information for individuals whose licence has been refused or revoked. In the event one of these individuals makes a new application for new firearms licence, the previous refusal or revocation will be considered in the application process. Individuals applying for a new firearms licence are “client-matched” in the CFIS using their name and date of birth, along with other historical data in the database, for example, photograph, reference information, eye colour, height.

d) Approximately 360 police agencies, representing 59,906

2

police officers, have access to the Canadian Firearms Registry Online, CFRO, through the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. CPIC is a resource of National Police Services, which is administered by the RCMP. Police agencies, as well as a small number of investigative and enforcement branches of other federal and provincial departments query CFRO through CPIC. CFRO can only provide the total number of queries made by all agencies with access to it.

e) The following list contains the types of queries which may be performed in CFRO in the descending order of their frequency of use:

Name

Address

Firearm serial number

Licence number

Certificate number

Telephone number

Owner

Firearm identification number, FIN

Corporate

f) Over the last quarter, an average of more than 5,000 queries have been made daily to CFRO. Each query generates a response and provides useful information that can be used by the police to assess public and officer safety risks or determine whether enforcement or other interventions are needed.

1

2004 Report of the Commissioner of Firearms, tabled in the House of Commons, July 20, 2005

2

Statistics Canada table 254-0002, September 9, 2005

Question No. 180
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

SWith regard to the U.S. booster rocket that was launched over Newfoundland and Labrador in May of 2005: ( a ) when was the government notified that the rocket was to be launched; ( b ) what was the government’s initial reaction to the notification of the launching of this rocket; ( c ) was there a request made by the government that the rocket not be launched and, if so, was the request an official request and was it oral or written; ( d ) was a Canadian environmental assessment performed before the launch of this rocket; ( e ) has a Canadian environmental assessment been performed since the launch of the rocket; ( f ) are there plans to do an environmental assessment; ( g ) what chemicals, if any, were deposited into the ocean as a result of the launching of this rocket; ( h ) was a clean-up of any chemicals performed as a result of the launching of this rocket and, if so, by whom and at what cost; ( i ) does the government have any scientific reports of the effects of the booster rocket chemicals on marine life; ( j ) is the government aware if the U.S. intends to launch future rockets over similar areas of our coastline and, if so, when will these rockets be launched; ( k ) has the booster been retrieved from the ocean floor; and ( l ) are there plans to retrieve the booster from the ocean floor and, if so, when and at what cost?