House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was trade.

Topics

Fishing Industry
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Prince Edward Island who are concerned over the plans with respect to fleet separation and owner-operator policies. They point out that these policies have been the backbone of the Atlantic inshore fishery for many years, that the removal of these policies would directly affect over 30,000 jobs in the fishing industry, and that there has been an abject lack of consultation with fishers on the issue, in fact, an outright refusal to answer some questions. They point out the problems that have arisen with respect to the control of the fishery by corporate interests in other jurisdictions.

They therefore call upon the Prime Minister to maintain and strengthen the fleet separation and owner-operator policies.

Health
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from many residents of Thunder Bay, Toronto, Neebing, Dryden, Ear Falls, Murillo, and all over Canada, who are concerned that the closure of Canada's only dedicated blood plasma clinic in Thunder Bay could jeopardize the Canadian supply. U.S. plasma will be imported to make up the supply shortfall, but U.S. plasma is often from paid donors, which is against World Health Organization guidelines because it is risky. The petitioners are calling on the government as a regulator to take action.

The Environment
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many residents from across Canada, including Ontario, Quebec, and Ymir, B.C. They draw the attention of the House to the current moratorium on the oil tanker traffic along the rugged coast of British Columbia, which has so far kept that wilderness free of oil spills since 1972. They feel the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to protect the environment and the rights of first nations and are calling on the House to halt the partisan support for the northern gateway pipeline.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from residents of metro Vancouver who are concerned that the collapse of the Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 reactor could lead to catastrophic radiologic consequences with grave and long-term health, environmental, and economic impacts worldwide. They call on Canada to acknowledge that risk. They specifically request that the Canadian government write to the UN secretary general and the Japanese prime minister urging that a nuclear safety summit be organized to have a global ability to address this risk. They also ask that the UN establish an independent assessment team on the Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 reactor to coordinate international assistance, and that the Canadian government pledge to participate in both the summit and the independent assessment team.

Rights of the Unborn
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too have a rather lengthy petition from constituents in my riding who call upon the government to enter debate on when human life becomes human life.

Pensions
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, constituents of Winnipeg North want a message to be sent to the Prime Minister in regard to our old age pension programs.

The petitioners believe that people should continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major senior programs: OAS, GIS and CPP.

The Environment
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first includes petitioners from coast to coast. It starts with a lot of residents of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and areas around Charlottetown and extends all the way to the British Columbia coast, to my riding, to Saanich, to Sidney, as well as to Sechelt and Roberts Creek.

These petitioners ask the Government of Canada, particularly the Privy Council, to stop supporting the Enbridge pipeline, the so-called northern gateway, to risky supertankers, and to ensure that the hearings are impartial.

Bill C-38
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

June 19th, 2012 / 10:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my second petition, which I had hoped to present yesterday before the final vote on Bill C-38 in this place, is from over 1,560 petitioners. The petitioners are literally from coast to coast, from Halifax, Calgary, Point Alberni, Port Moody, Orillia, Vancouver, Sidney, Saanich, as well as Toronto and Ottawa.

These petitioners all call on this House of Commons to reject the so-called budget omnibus bill which was neither a proper budget bill nor a proper omnibus bill, but which rammed through changes to 70 laws. The laws will be changed, repealed or amended in fundamental ways. Canadians will wake up to discover the damage once the bill clears the Senate.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:20 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. 647 and 652.

Question No. 647
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Cardigan, PE

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s (DFO) fleet separation and owner-operator policies: (a) what are the exact dates these policies were put in place, and for what reasons were the policies implemented; (b) is the government conducting an analysis of the possibility of removing these policies; (c) does the government possess any analysis which indicates that economic, social, or cultural benefits would arise from the removal of these policies, and, if so, what are these benefits; (d) does the government possess any analysis which indicates that economic, social, or cultural damage would arise from the removal of these policies and, if so, what are these damages; (e) with regard to the removal of these policies, has the government been lobbied by any (i) companies, (ii) organizations, (iii) individuals; (f) if the government has been lobbied, as per (e), what are the details of each meeting that has taken place to discuss the matter with the Minster of Fisheries and Oceans, the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Oceans, or other senior Ministerial or departmental staff, specifying (i) the names of the people present at the meeting, (ii) the date the meeting occurred, (iii) the location of the meeting; (g) has the government studied how these policies are perceived internationally, and, if so, what are its conclusions concerning whether the policies are perceived as state subsidies or trade barriers on the international stage; (h) has the government, in the course of any free-trade deal or negotiation or for other reasons, documented international pressure of any kind from any group or country to remove these policies; (i) has the government had any meetings or discussions with any individual, as a result of that individual’s authorship of an editorial or column advocating the removal of these policies or the implementation of market-based fisheries reforms for Atlantic Canadian fisheries, and, if so, for each such meeting or discussion, (i) with whom, (ii) on what dates, (iii) at what locations; (j) if the government has not conducted any analysis as per (c) and (d), does it plan to do so before any change to the policies takes place; and (k) has the government conducted an analysis of any other jurisdictions as a model for implementing market-based fisheries reforms and, if so, which jurisdictions?

Question No. 647
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Fredericton
New Brunswick

Conservative

Keith Ashfield Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, fleet separation and owner-operator polices, with respect to (a), the fleet separation policy was implemented in 1979 to separate the harvesting and processing sectors. It does not permit the issuance of licenses to corporations such as processing companies, in the inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec that are restricted to using vessels less than 65 feet in overall length. At the time, it was seen as a way to limit the processing sector’s influence on supply chains.

The owner-operator policy was adopted in 1989 and requires inshore licence holders in Atlantic Canada and Quebec to fish their licences personally. Following the implementation of the fleet separation policy, processors were unable to obtain licences to fish as part of the inshore fleet, but independent harvesters were able to hold licences while not fishing their vessels and pursuing other activities, including working in the processing sector. The owner-operator policy was developed to address this issue.

With regard to (b), (c) and (d), no, these policies have been the subject of previous fisheries management consultations, including the Atlantic fisheries policy review. The views expressed during this consultation can be found online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/afpr-rppa/home_e.htm.

With regard to (e)(i), (e)(ii), (e)(iii) and (f)(i), (f)(ii) and (f)(iii), DFO recently conducted a national consultation seeking the views of all Canadians on how fisheries management could be improved. Though the owner-operator and fleet separation policies were not the focus of the consultation process, DFO received commentary from stakeholders outlining their views on these policies.

During the consultation, the department has heard from many companies, organizations, and individuals on many fisheries management policies, including the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. No other meetings have been held at the senior level outside of these consultations to specifically discuss the owner-operator and fleet separation policies.

With regard to (g), (h) and (i), no, the government has not documented anything, because the issue has not been raised in any free trade negotiation. The government has also not met with any individual following their authorship of an editorial or column advocating for the removal of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies.

With regard to (j), no decisions have been made concerning how any fisheries management policies may change, including the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. The department’s work on policy research and analysis is ongoing, and the department will consider what further forms of analysis may be needed to support the development of fisheries management.

With regard to (k), DFO routinely scans the literature and monitors best practice around the world, and within Canada, regarding fisheries management.

Question No. 652
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

With regard to 444 Combat Support Squadron: (a) how many aircraft were in the squadron on April 10, 2012; (b) how many aircraft were in the squadron on April 12, 2012; (c) is the aircraft which the Minister of National Defence references in his press release of April 12, 2012, an aircraft allocation which was not previously present at the squadron, or is it the restoration of an aircraft allocation which was previously seconded to other duties; (d) if the aircraft referenced in (c) was previously seconded to other duties, what were the nature and duration of those duties; (e) what is the mandate of the squadron; (f) in what orders, instructions, or other documents is that mandate set out; (g) what is the date or what are the dates of those orders, instructions, or other documents; and (h) did the mandate of 444 Squadron change at any point during the present calendar year, and if so, what was the nature and date of any such change in the mandate?

Question No. 652
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 10, 2012, 444 Squadron had two CH-146 Griffon aircraft on strength.

With regard to (b), on April 12, 2012, 444 Squadron had three CH-146 Griffon aircraft on strength.

With regard to (c), the aircraft that the Minister of National Defence references in his press release of April 12, 2012, has restored 444 Squadron to the full establishment of three helicopters for which it was originally created.

With regard to (d), in October 2005, a CH-146 Griffon was transferred from 444 Combat Support Squadron to 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, 8 Wing Trenton. The Griffon referenced in (c) was transferred to 424 Squadron to support the CH-149 Cormorant search and rescue fleet when it was recognized that the Cormorant fleet was not able to sustain primary search and rescue operations at four main operating bases alone. CH-146 Griffons continue to be stationed at 424 Squadron to support search and rescue. The aircraft that is now being used to provide a third CH-146 Griffon to 444 Combat Support Squadron was provided by 438 Tactical Aviation Squadron, Saint-Hubert.

With regard to (e), (f) and (g), the mandate of 444 Combat Support Squadron is to provide support to air operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay. This role is set out in Canadian Forces Organization Order 7697, dated October 18, 2001, which superseded Canadian Forces Organization Order 2.2.5.2, dated May 15, 1993.

The roles, tasks and responsibilities of a combat support squadron are further defined by the operational document 3010-7, A3 Tactical Aviation Readiness, Concept of Operations--Combat Support Capability, dated March 25, 2002. This document provides that combat support squadron roles are as follows: primary role, to provide rapid search and rescue response to air emergencies resulting from local military flying operations; secondary role, to provide administrative and utility airlift in support of Wing operations; and tertiary role, to provide national secondary search and rescue and civil assistance capabilities.

In its tertiary role, a combat support squadron can be expected to respond within 12 hours of notification. However, within the context of the Canadian Forces search and rescue response, this does not imply a mandated response posture. Such secondary search and rescue resources are considered for assistance only when circumstances permit, and are not accountable to the search and rescue system for the provision of a dedicated resource.

With regard to (h), the mandate of 444 Combat Support Squadron has remained to provide support to air operations at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:20 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, if Questions Nos. 642, 644, 645, 646, 648, 649 and 651 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?