House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nuclear.

Topics

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

Accordingly the division on the motion stands deferred until the end of government orders on Monday.

Citizenship and Immigration
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by almost 100 petitioners.

The petitioners are quite upset that the Conservative government has introduced major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in a budget implementation bill. They note that the bill would give major new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that it would have irreversible damage to the humanitarian compassionate tradition that Canada has had, that it would limit the ability of ordinary Canadians to be united, based on humanitarian compassionate grounds, with overseas family members and that it would give the minister and her officials the power to deny visas to those who have already qualified.

They call upon the Government of Canada to abandon the changes to her powers that were introduced as part of Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, to increase staffing in overseas visa offices to deal with the immigration backlog, to increase Canada's immigration target to 1% of the Canadian population, which would be 330,000 new residents, to facilitate family reunification and meet labour needs and also to stop—

Citizenship and Immigration
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I would remind members that they are supposed to provide a brief summary, not read all the wording in the petition when presenting petitions.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Temporary Workers
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lee Richardson Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons assembled from residents of my constituency of Calgary Centre and members and adherents of the congregation of Knox United Church in Calgary.

The petitioners are concerned with the plight of migrant farm workers in Canada and the well-documented abuse that so many of them suffer.

They call upon Parliament to take action to deal with these abuses and to implement measures to prevent future injustices from occurring.

Unborn Victims of Crime
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I submit a petition which expresses profound concern regarding Bill C-484, the proposed unborn victims of crime act, because it conflicts with the Criminal Code and provides personhood to fetuses that would necessarily compromise women's established rights.

Violence against pregnant women, as members well know, is part of a larger societal problem of violence against women. Legal homicide laws elsewhere have done nothing to reduce this because they do not address the root inequalities that perpetuate the violence.

The best way to protect fetuses is to provide pregnant women the supports and resources they need for a good pregnancy outcome, including protection from domestic violence.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 245.

Question No. 245
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

With regard to the government's answer to written question Q-205, which was made an Order for Return and tabled on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, which of the listed criteria were deemed to have been met in determining that it was in the “public interest” to charge Janet Hinshaw-Thomas under Section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

Question No. 245
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, in deciding whether to consent to the institution of proceedings under section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, prosecutors apply the test set out in Chapter 15 of the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook entitled “The Decision to Prosecute”. First, the prosecutor must consider whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings. If there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, the prosecutor must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. Not all offences for which there is sufficient evidence must be prosecuted. As the deskbook states, the proper decision in many cases will be to proceed with a prosecution if there is sufficient evidence available to justify a prosecution. Generally, the more serious the offence, the more likely the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued.

In considering whether the public interest requires a prosecution, it is not a question of determining whether the factors listed in section 15.3.2 have been met. Rather the process is one of considering the general public interest with the factors listed, and the list is not exhaustive and the factors and their respective weight may vary from case to case, being taken into account to arrive at a general conclusion as to whether a prosecution is required.

The director of public prosecutions is accountable to the Attorney General of Canada for decisions made by federal prosecutors. Prosecutors are also accountable to the courts but the courts have indicated that they will not examine prosecutorial deliberations absent bad faith or flagrant impropriety. This is consistent with the principle of prosecutorial independence.¸

Generally, prosecutors do not publicly disclose details of their deliberations that touch upon a core element of prosecutorial discretion such as the decision to institute or stay proceedings. However, the deskbook does recognize that in certain cases, confidence in the administration of justice is strengthened by publicly communicating a general explanation for not prosecuting. The case of Ms. Hinshaw-Thomas falls into this category.

In deciding whether to prosecute Ms. Hinshaw-Thomas, the regional director followed the “Decision-to-Prosecute” policy in the deskbook. After reviewing the evidence initially presented by the investigators, he concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. He then considered whether the public interest required a prosecution. He examined the factors set out in section 15.3.2 including the general public interest in prosecuting given that a prosecution was justified on the evidence presented by the investigators, the seriousness of the alleged offence, the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, Ms. Hinshaw-Thomas’ alleged degree of responsibility for the offence, and the prosecution's likely effect on public confidence in the administration of justice. After considering the public interest based on the evidence before him, the regional director concluded that a prosecution was warranted.

After a charge had been laid, the investigators presented the regional director with new evidence. Consistent with his obligation to apply the evidentiary standard of “reasonable prospect of conviction” throughout the proceeding, the regional director reviewed the file in the light of this new evidence and concluded that the evidence no longer justified a prosecution. Given this conclusion, the public interest test did not enter into play. The proceedings were therefore stayed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

May 29th, 2008 / 1:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 258 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 258
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Yukon, YT

With regard to the detection of ship source pollution for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, to date: (a) what were the routes of patrols by Canada’s National Aerial Surveillance Program (CNASP) within Canada’s Arctic waters; (b) how many flights were conducted by the CNASP; (c) how many aircraft were used by the CNASP; (d) what was the total number of hours logged, in patrol time, by the CNASP; (e) what were the numbers of (i) hours of recorded inspection by the CNASP, (ii) vessels sighted by the CNASP, (iii) vessels inspected by the CNASP, (iv) mystery spills identified by the CNASP, (v) mystery spills investigated for origin of source by the CNASP, (vi) charges laid, (vii) convictions; (f) what was the amount of (i) fines and penalties levied, (ii) fines paid and penalties served; (g) what was the number of patrol incidences by the CNASP where survey was considered unsafe and what were the reasons for the unsafe determinations; (h) what were the total costs associated with the pollution patrol surveillance program; (i) what other methods does the government employ to monitor, track and prosecute pollution incidents in Canada’s Arctic waters; and (j) how many incidents have been reported by these other methods?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?