John Cummins

[Question No. 6, January 31st, 2005]

With regard to the exclusive arrangement entered into by the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Nautical Data International (NDI) involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and the reluctance by Navionics and C-Map to accept the new royalties and other fees now demanded by NDI: ( a ) when the exclusive relationship with NDI was renewed were competitive bids sought, and, if not, why not; ( b ) when the exclusive relationship was renewed, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; ( c ) what is the nature of the exclusive relationship with NDI involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( d ) does this exclusive arrangement authorize NDI to prohibit re-sellers of electronic charts under Crown copyright from disclosing or complaining about the royalty or other fees imposed by NDI; ( e ) in response to the new 50% royalty and various access fees and annual renewal fees recently imposed by NDI for electronic nautical charts, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; ( f ) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the 50% royalty now being demanded by NDI; ( g ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set the royalties and other fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( h ) what authority or role does the Canadian Hydrographic Service have in the setting of royalties and various fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( i ) what is the purpose and value of the annual “access fees” for re-sellers and the annual renewal fees for purchasers of electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( j ) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the “access fees” and annual renewal fees imposed on electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( k ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set “access fees” and annual renewal fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( l ) what authority does the exclusive contract renewed in 2003 with NDI give the Canadian Hydrographic Service to ensure that boaters and fishermen have continued access to electronic nautical charts in a timely manner necessary to ensure that marine safety is not impaired; ( m ) what remuneration has the Canadian Hydrographic Service received from NDI in each of the following years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, and thus far in 2004; ( n ) what is the remuneration NDI has received under this exclusive arrangement in each year since 1993; ( o ) what grants, contributions or loans have been provided to NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; ( p ) what contracts have been entered into with NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; ( q ) what members of the staff of the Canadian Hydrographic Service have moved to NDI either as employees, officers, consultants or in some other capacity; ( r ) what unique value-added service, if any, does NDI provide in relation to the data used by Navionics and C-Map and similar electronic nautical chart re-sellers that could not be sourced elsewhere; and ( s ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service undertaken comparisons with similar governmental agencies in the United States with regard to both its exclusive relationship with NDI and the royalties and other access fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and, if so, what were the findings?

(Return tabled)

[Fisheries and Oceans, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal hack and failed judge Brian Williams has been appointed to chair an inquiry into the Fraser River sockeye disaster. The commercial fishing industry withdrew from the inquiry in protest due to his bias.

Chief Justice Williams lost his authority to decide resource and aboriginal cases due to his bias. The health minister appointed him to head an inquiry, but he was forced to resign because of his bias. He is a donor and adviser to an advocacy group that sought to shut down commercial and recreational fisheries on the Fraser, another bias.

When will the minister give up on Williams and establish the judicial inquiry sought by fishermen?

[Privilege, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to an answer to a written question, which answer was tabled in the House on December 8. The response in the House was, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to mislead the House, an infraction defined by Speaker Jerome in 1978.

The question was first asked on February 3, 2004. It was asked again on October 5, 2004. The question was as follows:

With regard to the environmental and economic issues posed by the development of salmon farm aquaculture sites in bays and inlets along the coast of British Columbia...what...diseases or parasites have been found at salmon net pen sites in each of the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and what was the location of each farm site having these diseases or parasites--

A response was prepared for the minister by February 17, two weeks after the question was first asked. It was prepared by Dorothee Kieser, a well-known fish health pathobiologist and was as follows:

Canada has no list of reportable fish diseases.

Because there are not reportable diseases, DFO has no regulatory capacity for requiring farms to report disease outbreaks. Nor does the Department have a routine monitoring program to check on the status of disease outbreak on farms. While such monitoring is done by a provincial agency, DFO does not obtain that information.

The department also does not maintain a surveillance program to detect pathogens/parasites in wild stocks or detect a change in the rate of infection/infestation. Hence there is no ability to state whether diseases in wild stocks are “new” or whether there is a greater prevalence of pathogens in wild stocks.

According to a departmental document received under access to information, Sharon Ashley, the acting director general of the executive secretariat determined that the scientist's answer for the minister was too negative. The directive demanded that Sharon McGladdery, the senior science advisor for aquatic animal health, prepare a more positive response to this question. That response given in this House on December 8 was:

This information is collected by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, whose veterinary services are responsible for aquaculture fish health surveillance and diagnosis.

A question was asked about a matter pertaining to the mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that is, the protection of wild fish and their habitat. An answer was prepared by the department's senior fish health pathobiologist who advised that the department was not fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect wild fish and their habitat.

The answer was deemed too negative. A senior bureaucrat in the minister's executive secretariat found the answer too negative and ordered the preparation of a more positive response to this question. The more positive response is the responsibility of the province, according to the minister.

The minister's answer in Parliament is a serious attempt to mislead Parliament. The truth is that matters affecting the health of fish in the marine environment is the direct responsibility of the Department of Fisheries under statutes enacted by Parliament and is the sole responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution.

The original response prepared by the scientist clearly stated the department's failure to fulfill its obligations. The sanitized response would have us believe that the matter was the responsibility of the province.

In 1978 Speaker Jerome stated:

--in order to found a question of privilege, the allegation would have to be not simply that the House had been misled, but had been deliberately misled.

--an allegation that the House had been misled without deliberateness does not constitute privilege on the face of it.

The minister's December 8 response is not merely a sin of omission, it is one of commission, of deliberateness. The response was rewritten to deliberately remove the embarrassing truth.

I placed the question on the order paper recognizing it was one that required detailed study by Department of Fisheries scientists because I wanted a scientifically accurate answer. In sharp contrast to the answer prepared for the minister by the Department of Fisheries scientist, the minister's answer given in Parliament is devoid of the embarrassing factual material. The minister's answer is devoid of the facts that had been deemed too negative by the director general of the executive secretariat.

The minister's answer was a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament.

DFO scientists carefully prepare an accurate response to the written question. It should not be acceptable to the House that the response be rejected by senior staff in the minister's office because it is too embarrassing for him to give to the House.

Something less than the truth is not merely embarrassing, it is wrong. The direction given to produce a positive response as opposed to a truthful response to my question is an affront to the House.

Mr. Speaker, should you rule that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to send the issue to a parliamentary committee.

[Question No. 14, December 10th, 2004]

With regard to the used hovercraft, the Liv Viking, which was recently acquired by the Canadian Coast Guard base at Vancouver International Airport to provide search and rescue service: ( a ) what was the original purchase price of the Liv Viking when originally constructed; ( b ) what was the purchase price of the Liv Viking paid by the Government of Canada; ( c ) what was the cost of the refit; ( d ) what were the design costs; ( e ) what were the costs of survey engineering and related feasibility work; ( f ) what were the travel and associated expenses of the Coast Guard, Public Works and other government agencies associated with the selection, design, purchase and refit of the Liv Viking; ( g ) what were the total administrative charges levied against the project; ( h ) what was the cost to put the Liv Viking into service; ( i ) when was the Liv Viking originally constructed; ( j ) when did it go into service in Europe; ( k ) what was the nature of the service in Europe; ( l ) when was it withdrawn from service in Europe; ( m ) why was it withdrawn from service in Europe; ( n ) how many hours of service did it have in Europe; ( o ) what happened to the hovercraft when it was taken out of service in Europe; ( p ) what are the maximum wind conditions (in knots) in the Coast Guard's Search and Rescue (SAR) Area 303 (where the Liv Viking will be expected to operate) in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and is the craft certified to operate in such conditions; (q) what is the wave height (percentage of time) in SAR Area 303 for the following wave height conditions – 0-1 metre, 1-2 meters, 2-3 metres and 3 or more metres – in (i) spring, (ii) summer, (iii) fall, and (iv) winter and has the craft been accredited to operate in such conditions; ( r ) do the operational performance requirements ensure that the craft has the ability to (i) undertake search and rescue operations in wave heights of 3 metres and winds of 40 knots, (ii) maintain a speed of 35 knots for a continuous period of 8 hours; and (iii) maintain a speed of 20 knots in wave heights of 1 metre and winds of 25 knots; ( s ) does the Liv Viking have a bow-ramp for use in medical evacuations and if not, why not; ( t ) as part of the refit, were the “lift” engines replaced, if not, why not, and how many hours have they been in service; ( u ) after going into service in Canada has the Liv Viking had any breakdowns or repairs, if so what were they; and ( v ) what kind of diving platform does the Liv Viking have, how do rescue divers enter the water from it, how do rescue divers and those in the water in need of assistance get aboard, and are they able to get onboard without assistance?

(Return tabled)

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is twofold. Part of the issue that troubled most Canadians was the travel that the Governor General undertook as she saw it to do her job. Most Canadians were offended by some of that. They saw it as extravagant. The other part of the Governor General's job involves ceremonial duties and the maintenance of her residence, which is a historical site. I understand they are part of the budget as well.

I do not want to see the Governor General's ability to perform the sort of ceremonial duties that are expected of her undercut or impacted. I want to ensure that the kind of travel that was undertaken, which I understand was not in her budget but came out of foreign affairs, is stopped. I want to see that sort of nonsense stopped.

Let us get the personalities out of the way and take a look at the facts. I would like to know from the President of the Treasury Board, what are the facts here? What is being cut?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the comments of my friend and colleague across the way. This is not a political issue. I have read Mr. Crosbie's book and I reject many of his premises and the conclusions he reached on this particular issue. He is not accurate, in a word, and I think anybody who is familiar with the circumstances when Mr. Crosbie initiated the separate commercial fishery knows that he is inaccurate.

I have stated publicly before that this is not a political issue and that the first disaster we talk about happened in 1992 on the watch of a Conservative government. I am not denying that. In 1994, it happened under a Liberal government. And we had better inquiries then than the one the minister is proposing now.

Let us look at the people who supported Mr. Fraser in 1994. They were outstanding academics, people who were well recognized in their fields, not only nationally but internationally. In fact, one American, Lee Alverson, was on that particular committee. They looked at it and did the best job they could, as Mr. Fraser admitted to the committee the other day when he said, “We did the best job we could. We couldn't answer all the questions because we didn't hear the testimony”.

That is a problem. This issue is not an aboriginal issue, as members across the way would have us believe. This issue is about the management capabilities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and we have said so every year since 1992. People in the commercial fishing industry talk about the department's ability to manage their fishery; it is the department's responsibility to ensure that sufficient spawners get to the gravel and it has not done it.

Why do we want a judicial inquiry? We want it because the other inquiries were unable to expose the management problems of the fishery. It is not a higher temperature issue. Mr. Fraser was able to address that issue and so was Dr. Pearse in 1992. They dismissed this notion that higher temperatures were responsible.

The issue is a management issue. The only way we will get to the bottom of it is through a judicial inquiry. The judge has the right to limit the number of interveners. We are not going to end up with 99 aboriginal interveners and an intervener for every commercial and sport group in the province. The judge has the right to limit it. He will do that. There would be agreement among those interveners to move this issue quickly because it is in the best interests of the resource.

That is what this is about. Let us forget the red herrings that the minister talks about in saying that somehow it will just go on like the Somali inquiry and another minister like Doug Young will come along and kill it. We want answers. That is what we want.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was a nice speech that the minister read and just spent the last two or three minutes talking about an issue which is irrelevant to the discussion today. It goes to show just how much he knows about the issue at hand.

He suggested this review, that he has put in place, has been welcomed by the industry, but the integrated harvest planning committee was not happy, at least all members were not happy. As suggested earlier, the commercial salmon advisory board wrote Mr. Williams about this very fact. It was very upset that it was not consulted by the minister or the department regarding its view on how the review should be conducted prior to the minister making his announcement in assigning the integrated harvest planning committee the task. In addition the members of the board said that the minister's appointment and draft terms of reference were presented to the committee at the end of the inaugural meeting in which the committee was discussing its own structure, process, procedures and terms of reference. They are not happy with the way this has been handled. It is not what they signed on for.

This review is going to take a long time. It cannot be rushed. These folks signed on for a few days of meetings, maybe two or three times a year, not to get into the kind of in-depth review that is required.

Why did the minister not broadly consult before he embarked on this review? Why were fewer fisheries officers on the job this summer than there were in 1994?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has hit the nail on the head. The reason we and the stakeholders are asking for an inquiry is because we have been the other routes. We have been the protest route and the court route, and we want an end to it.

The people who are involved in the fishery on the west coast, whether they are commercial or sports fishermen, and the public at large are tired of the strife over it and they want answers. They want clarification. They want to know what is going on. They are tired of the finger pointing. They are tired of reading it in the press. The only way that will happen is to have a judicial inquiry, with the chair being neutral and without any biases and being given the ability to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath.

We heard testimony from fisheries officers the other day. When I heard it I thought, and I think anyone reading the public record will think the same thing, that it sounded like everything was okay. However if we were to think about it, in 1994, when there was a problem, there were 33 fisheries officers in the whole of the lower mainland, which meant about six or seven officers on duty for the whole of the lower mainland, up Howe Sound and up the Sunshine Coast a bit.

When Mr. Fraser issued his report, Minister Tobin and others said that they would expand the number of fisheries officers. The number went up to 41 or 42, depending on who was doing the counting. This summer we had 29 fisheries officers, less than we had in 1994.

When I asked officials at the department whether there were helicopter patrols into the Fraser canyon this summer they did not know. I can tell members that there were none. Ordinarily they patrol over 300 hours a year but this year there were none. They do not know what is going on there. They say that they went up the canyon in a boat. What happens to the other areas? They do not get covered. The coverage is not there.

Somebody, once and for all, has to answer these questions. I have been asking questions for 12 years on this stuff and I am getting tired of it. I want answers. The public in British Columbia want answers. The fishing industry, the fishing community and the aboriginal communities want answers. We want them and we want it done once and for all. We want a judicial inquiry.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are problems in this fishery. For example, I have a friend with whom I wrote the 2004 Fraser River sockeye escapement crisis report, Phil Eidsvik, B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition. Phil is closely identified with the commercial fishing industry, trying to protect its access to the fisheries resource. He has the ability to be very impartial, I am sure. At the same time, former Justice Williams is identified with native issues. Yes, he may have the ability to be impartial, but the perception is there that somehow he has this bias and it will colour the discussions.

Former Justice Williams is a major contributor, donor and adviser to a group called Eagle, which has initiated legal challenges on native rights to all the Fraser River fish. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that, but it does not make him a good choice as an impartial chair. That is what the B.C. salmon harvesters said in a letter to him dated December 6, when they refused to attend his first meeting. They said that he may be fine, but that they did not view him as impartial and they would not participate because of that.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the first issue. I referred to a wall of death in my report. If people would like that report, they are certainly welcome to it. It is available on my website. I defend that report to death, so to speak.

What the member is trying to do is to suggest somehow that this is perhaps an aboriginal issue, those for and against. Let me put on the record that Chris Cook, the president of the Native Brotherhood, has expressed his concern about the net fishery in the Fraser Canyon. I went to see the people of the Tsilhqot'in national government about a month and a half ago. They are concerned about it. They say that in those sorts of fast waters they dip net. They should be dip netting in the Fraser Canyon. That is one Indian group looking at another saying that this is what they should be doing.

I presented a petition in the House from the people of Alert Bay. Alert Bay is a native community. They are calling for a judicial inquiry.

Let us talk science as well. I talk about a wall of death because I have looked at those nets in the Fraser Canyon. I have seen it year after year. I have taken videos of it. I showed it to Mr. Fraser when he did his report. I have told anybody who would listen.

One of the scientists, Mr. Farrell, was before our committee, and I asked him about this. He pointed out that when these nets were in the water, the fish scattered. They head out to the deeper and faster water. When the fish are going up the Fraser Canyon, they hug the rock wall because they cannot swim against the current. When a net is put in every back eddy, it forces the fish out into the faster water. They get swept back downstream, have to turn around and work their way back up again. The scientific report says that when the nets go in the water, about 85% of the fish head out for deeper water or go low.

Another report came out on the same issue of these nets because they were untended. One cannot tend a net in the canyon consistently. We heard testimony about the Stikine River. After two hours, if someone picked a set net, that person got x number of fish. If that same net was left for 24 hours, there were x number of fish again. There was no increase for the next 22 hours. Why? Because fish fall out of the net. That is what happens in the Fraser Canyon. They disappear. They hit the bottom and die or they try to come up again and cannot do it. That is what has happened.

This is a matter of science. If that were a public fishery operating there, it would be shut down. There should be no net fishery in the Fraser Canyon. Anyone who has taken the time to go there knows that. The Native Brotherhood, the Tsilhqot'in people and the people of Alert Bay know that. The minister does not know that. Neither does the parliamentary secretary.

If there is unanimous consent, I would be happy to continue.