House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
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 response to two petitions.
Ivan Grose Liberal Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 9th and 10th reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts respecting chapters 25 and 29 of the December 1997 report of the auditor general.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons the committee requests the government to table comprehensive responses to these reports.
Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Centennial Flame Research Award Act I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the 1996 recipient of the Centennial Flame Research Award.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 56 will be answered today. .[Text]
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the arrangement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the sport fishing lodges in 1995 to provide daily catch data to the department through the offices of the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (SFI): ( a ) catch by anglers from sport fishing lodges accounted for approximately what part or portion of the total chinook sport catch; ( b ) what was the nature of this arrangement; ( c ) when was this arrangement negotiated; ( d ) When did the arrangement become operational; ( e ) why was it necessary (the Fisheries Act requires the lodges to provide the data to the DFO directly); ( f ) were there problems in the fishery in 1995 that made it important to have accurate catch data on a daily or weekly basis; ( g ) what were the nature of these problems; ( h ) what management actions were undertaken to deal with these problems; ( i ) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries scientists find the catch data provided through SFI to be accurate, timely and useful; ( j ) in addressing any of the problems identified above did DFO fisheries managers find the catch data provided through SFI accurate, timely and useful; ( k ) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge M.V. Marabell ; ( l ) was the catch data in ( k ) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; ( m ) was the catch data in ( k ) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; ( n ) how did the data in ( k ) compare to what would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; ( o ) when was the catch data received through SFI from the Oak Bay Marine Group lodge King Salmon Resort; ( p ) was the catch data in ( o ) received in a form and at a time as required by the Fisheries Act; ( q ) was the catch data in ( l ) received in a form and at a time so as to allow the department to use it to effectively manage the fishery; ( r ) how did the data in ( o ) compare to what would have been received if it had been given on-the-grounds to the department as originally requested and as required by the Fisheries Act; ( s ) when catch data requests were made by Fishery Officers or agents of the department to the King Salmon Resort on July 29, August 2 and August 7, 1995, what was requested, for what time period, what information was eventually supplied, and when was the data required so as to meet the operational or management needs of the department; ( t ) when catch data requests were made by Fishery Officers or agents of the department to the M.V. Marabell on August 1 and August 6, 1995, what was requested, for what time period, what information was eventually supplied, and when was the data required so as to meet the operational or management needs of the department; ( u ) were any charges laid for the failure of the lodges to provide the catch data to the department on a timely basis by way of SFI and if not why not; ( v ) what were the names of the lodges who refused to provide the catch data directly to the department, and what were the names of the lodges who provided the catch data to the department via SFI in an accurate and timely basis and in a proper form; and ( w ) what effect did the lack of catch information from the sport fishing lodges have on local fishery managers and did it compromise their ability to ensure that target levels or caps were not exceeded?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
(a) Approximately 60% of the north coast sport catch is taken by lodge clients.
(b) The arrangement made between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, Queen Charlotte Island, QCI, lodge operators and the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, SFI, was that the SFI would collect and collate catch information from the lodges on QCI and provide the information to DFO.
(c) August 1, 1995.
(d) On August 1, 1995 and the first report to DFO was August 8, 1995.
(e) Lodge operators were concerned about the confidentiality of weekly catch information from individual lodges and wanted only a summary to be released.
(f) Yes, a recreational catch ceiling had been imposed in statistical areas 1 and 2. Weekly information was required to track the catch.
(g) The catch ceiling was established to keep the north coast recreational harvest of west coast of Vancouver Island chinook at a level to achieve conservation goals.
(h) The recreational catch limit for chinook in statistical areas 1 and 2 was reduced from 2 per day and 4 possession to 1 per day and 2 possession on July 19, 1995.
(i/j) The catch data were provided as requested, and sufficient for both scientists and managers. The SFI was prompted on occasion to provide the data. Independent checks were done on the data provided and there was nothing to suggest the data were inaccurate.
(k) November 1995; the M.V. Marabell left QCI the second week of July, before the agreement with SFI.
(l) The information was not received during the summer of 1995 and was provided through SFI in November 1995 in a useable form.
(m) The catch data were not useful for in-season management.
(n) The catch data provided are considered accurate. The catch by guests of the M.V. Marabell form a very small portion of the total catch.
(o) The catch data for King Salmon Resort in Rivers Inlet were received directly from Oak Bay Marine Group in November 1995. The agreement with the SFI was to supply catch data from only QCI lodges.
(p) The information was not received during the summer of 1995 and was provided through SFI in November 1995 in a useable form.
(q) Catch data from Rivers Inlet lodges are not used for in-season management.
(r) The catch data would be the same.
(s) (i) Information resquested: Number, sex, size, weight, species, product form, and other particulars of fish caught, processed, or transported by King Salmon Resort-Rivers Inlet, its clients and employees; and the time, and place all fish were caught and retained and the person and vessel which caught and retained the fish. The August 7 request was for the lodge to comply with the August 2 request.
(ii) Time period: No specific time indicated as it was believed the information would be for the entire 1995 season.
(iii) Information provided: In the form as required of the charterboat sport fish log book program.
(iv) The information was to be provided during the season.
(t) (i) Information resquested: Number, sex, size, weight, species, product form, and other particulars of fish caught, processed, or transported by M.V. Marabell , its clients and employees; and the time, and place all fish were caught and retained and the person and vessel which caught and retained the fish. The August 9 request was for the lodge to comply with the August 1 request.
(ii) Time period: No specific time indicated as it was believed the information would be for the 1995 season.
(iii) Information provided: In the form as required of the charterboat sport fish log book program.
(iv) The information was to be provided during the season.
(u) No charges were laid for failure of the lodges to provide catch data to DFO on a timely basis by way of the SFI because catch data were received on August 8, 1995
(v) All QCI lodges refused to give data directly to DFO and gave catch data to SFI.
(w) The lack of catch data on a timely basis from sport fish lodges had a samll impact on the department's ability to manage the QCI sport fishery in season to within the established chinook catchcap. In the absence of this information fish managers anticipated catch levels based on previous data and other catch data. It did not compromise their ability to ensure the total catch was below the established ceiling.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Question No. 21 has been on the Order Paper since October 3, 1997 and the parliamentary secretary has repeatedly promised the House that he will make inquiries. I am wondering if those inquiries have been made and, if so, when we could expect an answer to Question No. 21.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have noted the member's request. As he will have noted in the last two days we have begun to clear a considerable backlog and a number of the questions that have been asked have in fact been responded to.
I will undertake to look into Question No. 21 once again.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the answer to Question No. 56 this morning.
However, Question No. 33 was asked on October 28. I am still waiting for a response. It involves a special relationship between the minister of fisheries and the Oak Bay Marine Group and I can understand the reluctance of the minister to reply to that given the fact that the charges were dropped against the Oak Bay Marine Group.
I was wondering when I could expect an answer to that question.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member has noted, he has received a reply to some of the questions and I was glad to be able to table those replies. I will look into any other questions he has as soon as possible.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That in relation to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I am afraid it is too late for a point of order. The hon. member can raise his point of order when the members have come in, before the vote is taken.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
