House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indian.

Topics

Citizenship
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House of Commons a petition from citizens asking the government to restore citizenship equality to persons born abroad.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to pass NDP Bill C-397 which would restore equality among all Canadians no matter where they were born. They are asking the government to ensure that the citizenship status of children and grandchildren of ex-pat Canadians and adoptive families is not downgraded or outright stripped away.

The petitioners are also asking the government to revoke without delay the provision which as of April 17, 2009 is causing statelessness in some born-abroad children of born-abroad Canadians

The petitioners want Canada to treat citizenship in a manner that reflects and promotes Canada's economic, social, intellectual and humanitarian engagement with the world.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 174 and 191.

Question No. 174
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Cape Breton—Canso, NS

With respect to segregated fund products (also known as variable annuities) and the decision by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada (OSFI) to decrease the amount of funds required for capital models of these products: (a) why did OSFI decide to change the required amount of capital insurance companies must hold in order to make future payments; (b) what additional investment risks are assumed by Canadian investors as a result of this policy change; (c) has OSFI requested as quid pro quo that senior management of insurance companies reduce the compensation and bonuses they receive until capital requirements are restored to previous levels; and (d) was OSFI lobbied by then President and Chief Executive Officer of Manulife Financial, Mr. Dominic D'Alessandro, to make the decision?

Question No. 174
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Whitby—Oshawa
Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, please be advised that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, is an independent, arm’s length agency of the Government of Canada that was established to prudentially regulate and supervise federal financial institutions and private pension plans, in order to contribute to public confidence in the Canadian financial system.

OSFI was established on July 2, 1987, by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, OSFI Act. Under the OSFI Act, the superintendent is solely responsible for exercising the authorities provided by various federal financial and pension legislation. The superintendent is required to report to the Minister of Finance from time to time on the administration of the financial institutions legislation.

With regard to a) Pursuant to the Insurance Companies Act, federally regulated life insurance companies are required to maintain adequate capital in relation to their operations. The minimum continuing capital and surplus requirements, MCCSR, for life insurance companies, established by OSFI, sets out the framework within which the superintendent assesses whether life insurance companies maintain adequate capital.

Prior to the October 2008 changes to the insurance companies’ capital requirements for segregated fund guarantees, OSFI initiated a process to review and update the industry’s capital adequacy rules. However, significant developments in global financial markets, in particular, extreme volatility in international stock markets, hastened that review.

The October 2008 revisions to insurance companies’ segregated fund guarantee MCCSR rules and its accompanying letter can be found online at: www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/capital/guidelines/Revisions_Seg_Fund_MCCSR_Guid_e.pdf (MCCSR Revisions) and www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/capital/guidelines/Revisions_Seg_Fund_MCCSR_Guid_LET2_e.pdf (Accompanying Letter).

With regard to b) As stated in the aforementioned accompanying letter from OSFI’s Robert Hanna, Assistant Superintendent – Regulation Sector: “These revisions seek to reduce volatility in capital requirements, to ensure that appropriate capital is held in respect of longer term payment obligations and shorter term payment obligations and to increase capital as payment dates become more proximate”.

With regard to c) With respect to OSFI’s power to regulate compensation and bonuses, OSFI has a supervisory mandate to ensure that banks have in place effective governance practices. In exercising that mandate, OSFI has the ability to require that a bank’s remuneration policies and practices do not expose the bank to undue risk, consistent with the financial stability board’s principles for sound compensation practices.

If OSFI were to identify a deficiency in a bank’s remuneration policies or practices, OSFI could take a number of measures pursuant to its supervisory authority, including as an initial measure, informing the bank of the need for corrective action.

In addition, please be advised the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the financial stability board, FSB, principles and implementation standards on sound compensation practices and has written to large banks and insurance companies outlining the expectation that they adopt the FSB principles and to ensure compensation practices are aligned. Following the G20 leaders’ commitment in Pittsburgh in September 2009 to reform compensation practices to support financial stability, the FSB has undertaken a review of implementation by jurisdictions and will propose additional measures as required. The review was published on March 30, 2010 (for more information, please visit: www.financialstabilityboard.org/list/fsb_publications/index.htm).

With regard to d) With respect to the lobbying activities of Manulife Financial and then President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Dominic D'Alessandro, please visit: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls75_ls6d_ls6d_ls61_ls72_ls79?_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls65=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_ls72_ls65_ls67_ls44_ls65_ls63=540062&_ls73_ls65_ls61_ls72_ls63_ls68_ls50_ls61_ls67_ls65=publicBasicSearch&_ls73_ls4d_ls64_ls4b_ls79=1273704363812&_STRTG3=tr.

Question No. 191
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow Trinity—Spadina, ON

With regard to temporary resident visa applications for both the applicant and the applicant's Canadian host, for each application, what is the breakdown of the following admissibility criteria: (a) minimum salary range; (b) minimum income; (c) relationship to remaining family members in the applicant's country; and (d) property value in order to be granted a temporary visitor visa in the visa offices of (i) Accra, (ii) Beijing, (iii) Chandigarh, (iv) Colombo, (v) Damascus, (vi) Harare, (vii) Havana, (viii) Hong Kong, (ix) Islamabad, (x) Lagos, (xi) Manila, (xii) New Delhi, (xiii) Port-au-Prince, (xiv) Shanghai, (xv) Tehran?

Question No. 191
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

St. Catharines
Ontario

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, visa offices do not assess temporary resident visa applications against minimum levels of the “admissibility criteria” mentioned above. Admissibility criteria are established by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and are related to issues of security, criminality, health, and misrepresentation.

Temporary resident visa applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and are approved when the visa officer is satisfied the applicant has a valid travel document, is not inadmissible, and is a bona fide temporary resident; that is, he or she will respect their conditions of entry and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for his or her stay. In order to assess bona fides, the visa officer will examine the application in order to be satisfied that the applicant has sufficient ties to his home country such as a job, family or property; and has sufficient funds to support himself and to justify the expense of a trip to Canada.

Each case is assessed on its own merits, and not against any pre-established minimum levels of income, property value, or family relationship.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if a supplementary response to Question No. 143, originally tabled on April 30, 2010, as well as Questions Nos. 173, 175 and 187 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 143
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Winnipeg South Centre, MB

With regard to violence against women and the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women, since 2006: (a) how many programs have been approved by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women to address this issue; (b) how much has been allocated to those projects; (c) what are the priorities of each project approved; (d) how many programs have been denied funding; (e) what is the total funding that would have gone to denied programs; (f) what were the parameters of each project that had been denied; (g) what were the reasons given for each project's denial; (h) what initiatives have been introduced government-wide addressing violence against women; (i) what specific bills have been introduced that address violence against women; (j) what departmental initiatives have been introduced by the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women to combat violence against women; (k) what specific bills have been introduced by the Department; (l) what gender-based analysis has been done on all government initiatives addressing violence against women; (m) what gender-based analysis has been done on all government bills concerning violence against women; and (n) what gender-based analysis has been done on all bills put forward by the Department of Justice?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 173
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Cape Breton—Canso, NS

With respect to Agent Orange and Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown: (a) what is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 4, 2010, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit; (b) what is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to March 4, 2010, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit; and (c) what is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to March 4, 2010, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 175
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to all government advertising to promote the Government of Canada and budget initiatives, such as Canada’s Economic Action plan, from January 1, 2006 to March 30, 2010: (a) how much has been spent on an annual basis on combined advertising, by department and budgetary initiative; (b) by how much did the government’s overall advertising budget increase or decrease during that period; (c) was any completed advertising audited or rejected for not adhering to Treasury Board rules and, if so, (i) what advertising, (ii) what was the total value of rejected or audited advertising; (d) what advertising was related to tax relief and what was its total cost by year; (e) what companies received contracts to complete this advertising work and what is the total cost, by department and budgetary initiative, on an annual basis; (f) how much has been spent per province on an annual basis; and (g) what contracts were awarded without tender and what is the total amount, by department and budgetary initiative, on an annual basis?

(Return tabled)