House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to 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 responses to three petitions.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the changes the committee recommends to Private Members' Business.
This report would not have been possible without the energy and conviction of the members of the subcommittee on Private Members' Business at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in both the present legislature and the 35th legislature.
I commend the work of the subcommittee and the committee members on this and hope that all members of the House will appreciate the complexity involved in proposing amendments on such a process.
It is our hope that these changes will further strengthen the role of private members in the House.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (membership of Board of Directors).
Mr. Speaker, in this period of negotiations at Canada Post Corporation, we may have an even greater awareness of the necessity for the composition of the board of directors of the Canada Post Corporation to require the creation of an advisory committee to handle decisions of an administrative nature which might be made by the corporation, particularly on questions relating to rural post offices.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an act to provide for petitions presented to the House of Commons that have 250,000 or more signatures to be subsequently prepared as bills so far as possible and introduced in the House.
Mr. Speaker, this bill aims at ensuring greater public involvement in decisions taken by Parliament and satisfaction for a significant proportion of the population, 250,000 people, signing a petition expressing a desire for legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
moved for leave to introduce Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act (Review Committee).
(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice of the following concurrence motion:
That the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Wednesday, November 26, 1997, be concurred in.
This is a notice of the motion to come.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have one petition today from Saint John, New Brunswick.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.
They also point out, as did the National Forum on Health, that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool children because it does not recognize the real costs of raising those children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate the tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home for preschool children.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by 312 people from my riding of Red Deer.
Parliament's recent amendments to the Criminal Code in response to the Daviault and Seaboyer cases, as well as amendments to deal with stalking and harassing conduct, reflect public policies underlying the law which requires males to take responsibility for their violent behaviour toward women.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament review and change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that individuals take responsibility for their violent behaviour toward others.
I met with these people and certainly believe this law must be changed.
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I remind all members that it is not necessary to support or not support petitions.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition concerning pay equity. The petition has been signed by several people from various communities in Nova Scotia: Halifax, Dartmouth, Fall River, Beech Hill, Windsor Junction, et cetera.
It points out that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes provision to end pay discrimination against women by making equal pay for work of equal value the law.
The petitioners call upon parliament to put an end to pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing the workers that are grieving.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 16, 19, 27 and 28. .[Text]
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the 1995 fishing season on the west coast: (a) did all sport fishing lodges provide catch data directly to Fisheries and Oceans as required by the Fisheries Act, (b) which lodges refuse to directly provide the catch information, (c) which lodges were charged for refusal to directly provide catch information, (d) which charges were dropped or stayed and why and (e) did the Minister of Fisheries or any member of his staff meet with any officials or representatives of those lodges charged prior to the dropping or staying of charges?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
(a) All sport fishing charter operators, which includes sport fishing lodges, except the two indicated in part (b) below, supplied the requested catch information to Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, either directly or through the Sports Fish Institute.
(b) There were two sport fish charter operations which did not provide the requested information to DFO either directly or through the Sports Fish Institute. They were: Mr. George Ardley, owner/operator of River Lodge, Rivers Inlet, B.C.; Oak Bay Marina Ltd. which operates various sport fishing enterprises including the King Salmon Lodge and the M.V. Marabell in the Rivers Inlet area, B.C.
(c) Both sport fishing charter operations indicated above were subsequently charged.
(d) The charges filed against Oak Bay Marina Ltd. were stayed. These charges were for failure to provide DFO with information requested by a fishery officer pursuant to section 61(4) of the Fisheries Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to section 78(a) of the Fisheries Act.
The Department of Justice stayed the proceedings on the grounds that evidence had come to the attention of the crown counsel handling the case, after the charges were laid and before the trial, that provided the company with a clear defence of officially induced error to the charges.
Specifically, DFO had arranged that fishing lodges could provide catch records to the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia. This arrangement was made to allow lodges to provide the information to DFO if they preferred not to do so directly.
However, due to an administrative oversight in Oak Bay Marina Ltd., two of their lodges were not informed of the arrangement and they consequently refused to provide the data to fishery officers. Furthermore, local fishery officers had not been informed by DFO management about the arrangements which had been put in place. In crown counsel's opinion the confusion provided a defence of officially induced error.
After weighing all factors, Department of Justice officials in Vancouver determined that it would not be appropriate to take up needless court time in the circumstances. The circumstances were discussed with Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials who agreed with the course of action.
(e) Yes, on unrelated issues.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges owned by the Oak Bay Marine Group of Victoria, the M.V. Marabell and King Salmon Resort, to provide the Department of Fisheries and Oceans catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by Section 61 of the Fisheries Act: (a) on what dates were verbal requests made form the Fisheries charter vessel Hook Line 3 and what was the response; (b) on what dates were verbal requests made from the Fisheries charter vessel Francis M and what was the response; (c) what was the date of the first boarding of the M.V. Marabell by Fishery Officers to request the catch data and what was the response from the lodge; (d) what was the date of the issue of a letter to the M.V. Marabell requesting the catch data and what was the response from the lodge; (e) what was the deadline contained in the latter requesting the catch data from the M.V. Marabell and was the deadline met by the lodge; (f) following the expiry of the deadline what was the date of the second boarding of the M.V. Marabell by Fisheries Officers and what was the response form the lodge; (g) what was the date of the first boarding of the King Salmon Resort by Fisheries Officers to request catch data and what was the response: (h) what was the date of the issue of a letter to the King Salmon Resort requesting catch data and what was the response; (i) what was the deadline contained in the letter requesting the catch data from the King Salmon Resort and was the deadline met; and (j) following the expiry of the deadline, what was the date of the second boarding of the King Salmon Resort by Fisheries Officers and what was the response from the lodge?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
(a) The charter vessel Hook Line 3 made a verbal request of the King Salmon Resort on July 29, 1995. The King Salmon Resort refused to provide information. The Hook Line 3 made no verbal requests of the M.V. Marabell .
(b) The charter vessel Francis Mr. made no verbal requests of the King Salmon Resort or the M.V. Marabell .
(c) The first boarding of the M.V. Marabell by fishery officers to request catch data was on August 1, 1995. The operators refused to provide the requested information.
(d) The letter to the M.V. Marabell requesting catch information was first served on August 1, 1995. There was no specific response to this request.
(e) The deadline in the letter was that requested catch information was to be provided by August 6, 1995. This deadline was not met.
(f) The second boarding was on August 9, 1995. The captain of the M.V. Marabell had been advised in writing by his empoyer not to provide the catch data. However, catch information was subsequently provided to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through the Sport Fishing Institute by the end of November 1995.
(g) The first boarding of the King Salmon Resort by fishery officers to request catch data was on August 2, 1995. The operators refused to provide the requested information.
(h) The letter to the King Salmon Resort requesting catch information was first served on August 2, 1995. There was no specific response to this request.
(i) The deadline in the letter was that the information be provided by August 6, 1995. This deadlime was not met.
(j) The second boarding of the King Salmon Resort was August 7, 1995. The captain of the vessel had been advised by his employer not to supply the department with catch data. However, catch information was subsequently provided to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through the Sport Fishing Institute by the end of November 1995.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
With regard to the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada “At Work in Rural Commununities” resource kit, (a) what was the breakdown of the exact cost of production and distribution; and (b) what categories of people received a copy of the kit?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
The resource kit, called Canada— At Work in Rural Communities is a package of information about federal programs and services, designed to help all members of Parliament and federal public servants to better serve the information needs of rural Canadians.
Canadians in small communities and rural areas do not have the same access to information as Canadians in urban centres. The kit is one part of a pan-government communications effort, developed under the leadership of the rural secretariat in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to address this issue.
The kit represents the work of 14 federal departments and agencies, and includes more than 100 fact sheets with program details, contact numbers and Internet addresses. The fact sheets are organized according to the government's priorities for rural development: partnerships with rural communities, rural youth, access to information and capital, and improving the business environment.
There are two versions of the kit. One is a permanent binder, sent to members of Parliament and senators, which can be updated. The other is a cheaper Cerlox version, distributed to well over 1,300 frontline federal offices across Canada where rural Canadians go for government information. That includes Community Futures offices, Canada Business Service centres, Human Resource Centres of Canada and other locations where the federal government comes into direct contact with rural Canadians. An Internet version is available on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's web site, and an electronic version, by end of the season, will have travelled to 155 rural fairs across the country as part of the 1997 rural exhibits program, which some 10 million Canadians attend.
Total costs to develop, design and produce the kit in binder, Cerlox, Internet and CD ROM versions were approximately $200,000. The main contractor was Innovacom Marketing and Communication of Hull, Quebec. It competed with two other design companies and won the contract to create the rural “look”, used on the resource kit, the rural Government of Canada kiosk and supporting materials. The company also provided advice as to materials and suppliers.
Distribution costs totalled about $5,800.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
With regard to permits issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (a) how many were issued for each of the years from 1993 to 1997 (to date); (b) what constitutes a “compelling reason” for issuing such a permit; (c) what is the most often cited reason for issuing such a permit for each of the years 1993 to 1997 (to date); ( d ) does the Minister personally review every case where a ministerial permit has been issued; (e) who, other than the Minister, has authority to issue such a permit; ( f ) what is the nature and extent of background checks on those individuals who receive permits; (g) how many ministerial permits have beem renewed at their expiry date since 1993; (h) for what average period of time have these renewals been extended; and (i) how many individuals who have received such permits have been living in Canada longer than ten years?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
a) The number of permits issued for each year from 1993 to 1996 is as follows:
Year>Number
1993>10,069
1994>7,263
1995>5,482
1996>4,007
The number of permits issued in 1997 will be reported to Parliament by the minister as required by subsection 37(7) of the Immigration Act.
b) All cases must meet this condition. The reasons that compel the department to issue permits vary. Often the presence of the permit recipient is required to help workers in Canada produce goods and services, e.g. to deliver goods to a manufacturer or to provide training. Hastening or allowing family reunification in special circumstances, e.g. pregnancy of an immigrating spouse, while continuing processing applications for immigrant visas or landing is another typical reason. They are issued for humanitarian and compassionate reasons in order to allow individuals who would otherwise be inadmissible to enter Canada. The department does not issue permits unless the risk to Canadian society of the recipient's presence in Canada is minimal.
c) The most often cited prohibiting section of the Immigration Act for permits issued in each year from 1993 to 1996 is A 19(2)(d). This section describes people who “cannot or do not fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements” of immigration legislation or any orders or directions lawfully made or given under the legislation. It is a very broad class of inadmissibility. Permit holders in this class are not inadmissible for any of the other reasons specified in section 19 of the Immigration Act, e.g. medical, criminal or security reasons.
d) No, the minister does not personally review each case of permit issuance.
e) The minister has delegated authority to issue permits to the positions listed in Instrument I-1 attached. In cases of medical or serious criminal inadmissibility there are restrictions on the delegation of authority. These restrictions ensure permit issuance is monitored by CIC's headquarters.
f) If the permit recipient applied for permanent residence, the nature and extent of background checks are identical to those for immigrant applicants, i.e., medical, security and criminality. If permit recipients are seeking temporary entry and are inadmissible for criminal acts, police records are checked. If permit recipients are seeking temporary entry and are inadmissible for medical reasons, they will have undergone a medical examination.
g) 16,699 permits for 11,433 persons have expired and been renewed since January 1, 1993. Of these permits only 3,781 were still valid on October 28, 1997.
h) The average period of renewals since January 1, 1993 has been 72 weeks or 506 days.
i) Only 570 of the people whose permits have been renewed since January 1, 1993 have been in Canada for longer than 10 years.
I-1 Delegation of authority under sections 37 of the Immigration Act
National Headquarters
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Director General, Enforcement Director General, Case Managment Director, Security Review Director, Organized Crime Director, Case Review
Regions in Canada
Regional Executive Directors/Directors General Directors General/Directors, Immigration Area Managers Managers, Branch Managers and Assistant Managers Canada Immigration Centres Mangers, Assistant Managers, Case Processing Centres Operations Supervisors, Mississauga
B.C./Yukon Region
Managers: Inland Operations, Port of Entry Operations, Hearings and Appeals
Overseas
Officers in charge of visa offices outside Canada
a) In the case of persons seeking to come into Canada, persons who are members of the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act and of no other inadmissible class;
b) In the case of persons in Canada, persons with respect to whom a report has been or may be made under paragraph 27(2)(a) by reason of the person being a member of the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(2)(d), or under paragraphs 27(2)(b) or (e), and under no other provision of the Immigration Act.
I also authorize these same persons to extend, pursuant to subsection 37(4) of the act, a permit issued to the said person.
Regions in Canada
Senior Immigration Examining Officers Supervisors of Immigration Counsellors, Case Presenting Officers, or Examining Officers, Enforcement Program Coordinator Supervisors of CIC Operations, British Columbia/Yukon Territory Region Team Leaders, Case Processing Centres
Quebec Region
Expertise officers
National Headquarters
Deputy Minister Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.