House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.
Fisheries June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a company owned by friends of the minister of fisheries was charged with failing to provide critical catch information.
Those charges were dropped days after the minister went fishing with the company's vice-president. The minister says the charges were dropped because the department had an agreement to get the data through a third party. His department now says no such agreement exists.
How does the minister explain this contradiction?
Questions On The Order Paper June 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention Question No. 92 which is now past due. It is a question that relates to the use of the drug mefloquine by Canadian forces bound for Somalia in 1993. The question is of some interest not only to the many people who have written to me about this matter but also to the auditor general who is currently reviewing the processes of the health protection branch.
I would like to know when I could expect that question to be answered.
Housing May 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, B.C. has a $1 billion disaster in the making, the so-called leaky condo crisis.
A renowned Canadian building scientist, Joe Lstiburek, blames the federal government's national building code and its R-2000 program. Despite loads of research that warned of the problem and of serious design flaws in R-2000 homes, the government did nothing.
It is no coincidence that most of greater Vancouver's failing buildings were constructed after the advent of the Department of Natural Resources R-2000 program.
Instead of addressing the problems found in British Columbia, CMHC spent its energy trying to see what effect poly vapour barriers had in the dry prairie climate. National standards and programs were never adapted to B.C. and we now have a billion dollars disaster.
I call on the government to acknowledge that it promoted and continue to promote a method of home construction that is guaranteed to create wet rotting walls for decades to come.
Parks Canada Act May 28th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I address the motion by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. His original amendment would have had the Official Languages Act apply to contractors and subcontractors operating in Canada's national parks.
As members are well aware, the Official Languages Act already applies to personnel employed in the national parks who must deal with the public. It was never intended to apply to people who did not have a public presence in those parks which is only logical.
In western Canada it is very difficult for people to acquire a second language given the circumstances in the location. To expect that somehow we are going to be able to supply bilingual people for these positions on a regular basis is really hoping for too much.
The position that we have taken on this bill is one which has been supported by the Minister of Justice. I would like to read a letter into the record which she sent to the Secretary of State for Parks. It very clearly expresses the concerns that we have on this issue. The fact that it is a letter written by the Minister of Justice should add some substance and credibility to our position:
I understand that, during review of Bill C-29 ( Canada Parks Agency Act ) in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, questions have been raised about the application of the Official Languages Act (OLA) to the proposed Agency and to its contractors and subcontractors. I am writing to confirm the position of the Department of Justice on this matter, namely that:
Under Bill C-29, the agency would be considered as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada. Section 3 of Bill C-29 states that “there is hereby established a body corporate to be called the Canada Parks Agency, that may exercise powers and perform duties and functions only as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada ” [we underline]. In view of s. 3(1)(h) of the OLA which states that “any other body that is specified by an Act of Parliament to be an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada (—)” is a federal institution, the Agency would clearly be considered as a federal institution and consequently, the OLA would fully apply to the Agency.
Furthermore, Bill C-29 also states in s. 4(1), that the “Minister is responsible for and has the overall direction of the Agency” and, at s. 4(2), that “the Agency shall comply with any general or special direction given by the Minister ” [we underline]. This requirement is also referred to in the second part of s. 3(1)(h) of the OLA where it is stated that a federal institution is also “any other body that is (—) to be subject to the direction of (—) a Minister of Crown”. As a consequence, the Agency would also meet this other criteria and, therefore, be clearly contemplated as a federal institution under the OLA .
In addition, section 50 of the Bill C-29 states that “Schedule II of the Federal Administrative Act , [FAA] is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: (—) Canadian Parks Agency”. This schedule identifies the “departmental corporations” under the FAA , and under s. 2 of the FAA , the departmental corporations are considered to be “ department [s]” (we underline).
Under s. 3 of the OLA , the definition of “federal institution” includes “department[s] of the Government of Canada”. The Agency would thus be considered a “department” under s. 3 of the OLA and s. 2 of the FAA , and would consequently also be subject to the obligations and duties of the OLA because of that status.
In summary, in view of the definition of federal institutions as described in s. 3(1)(f) and (h) of the OLA , our position is that the Agency would be a federal institution under that Act because it is (i) an agent of Her Majesty, (ii) under the direction of a Minister of the Crown, and (iii) a department of the Government of Canada. As a result, it would be subject to the full linguistic duties and obligations of the OLA .
II. If the Agency were to contract-out services to the public which, under the Official Languages Act , have to be provided in both official languages, section 25 of that Act would require the Agency to ensure that the services provided on its behalf continue to be offered in both official languages.
Section 25 of the OLA was enacted to ensure that federal institutions would not circumvent their duties under Part IV of the OLA (and a fortiori , under s. 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) when contracting out their services to third parties. S. 25 can only apply if we conclude that, in a given circumstance, the third party providing services to the public is acting on behalf of a federal institution. In every situation, the issue of whether a third party is acting on behalf of a federal institution must be determined on a case-by-case approach, on the basis of the circumstances and particularities of the arrangement between the federal institution and the third party.
In their usual meaning, the words “on behalf of” refer to the idea that one party is undertaking to do something for the benefit and as a representative of another party, generally at the request of the latter: “Behalf: 1 in the interest of (a person, principle, etc.). 2 as representative of (acting on behalf of my client”, in The Concise Oxford Dictionary , 8th ed., p. 99.
In our view some types of arrangements will clearly fall under the purview of s. 25, for instance if a federal institution is legally responsible—i.e., on the basis of an Act of Parliament, a contract or any rule of law—for the administration or undertaking of a particular activity or for the provision of services or communications to the public. In the event that the federal institution decides to contract out these services to a third party, the latter would be acting on behalf of the federal institution. As a consequence, s. 25 would apply and the federal institution would have to ensure that the third party providing the services and communications does so in compliance with the linguistic requirements of Part IV of the OLA.
Another type of arrangement which, in our view, would also be covered by s. 25 is the contract of mandat (or mandate) in civil law and of “agency” at common law. The rules of the mandat are based on the idea of representation: “[l]e mandataire [—] n'agit—” At common law, the power, vested in the hands of the agent, “is a power to affect his principal's position by doing acts on his behalf” ( Chitty on Contracts , Volume II, p. 22—we underline). Agency normally requires that the agent represent the principal. Indeed, the purpose and effect of the agency relationship are to transfer to the agent the authority of the principal to act, thereby enabling the agent to affect the principal's legal relations with third parties (C.E.D.(Ont.) 3rd ed., p. 49). As a consequence, in cases where the contract between the federal institution and the third party is considered to be a mandat or an agency relationship, the third party would be acting on behalf of the federal institution and s. 25 would require that its services and communications to the public be available in both official languages, in compliance with Part IV of the OLA.
That being said, the term “on behalf” should not necessarily be limited only to the types of arrangements described above, as a too narrow interpretation of s. 25—
The justice minister in No. III talks about the insertion of a linguistic clause in Bill C-29 not being advisable. She points out:
—the—wording of this amendment goes beyond the current application of the Official Languages Act since it seems to suggest that all parts of the OLA would apply to contractors and subcontractors of the Agency, as if they were federal institutions. This would have the effect of creating linguistic obligations for the contractors and subcontractors of the Parks Agency that do not currently exist under the OLA for contractors and subcontractors of other federal institutions.
Privilege May 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. I have given the Chair a copy of the grievance that I bring to the attention of the House and I have also contacted the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government to indicate to him that I wanted to rise today on a question of privilege.
In the past, in your wisdom, you have offered guidance on similar matters and I would hope for the same today. Needless to say, if you determine that I do have a question of privilege I am willing to move the necessary motion to bring this matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee.
It is a long and honourable custom in the House that members of parliament are to provide other members factual information and only the truth. It is part of the law of privilege that a member of this House in the performance of his or her duties can expect the truth from ministers of the crown, even if the truth should be that ministers cannot or will not answer the question raised.
Either we as members of parliament on all sides are entitled to rest secure in the knowledge that we are going to receive the truth in ministerial replies or we are not. Parliament is dependent upon ministers providing truthful information so that they and the government as a whole can be held accountable. This doctrine is the hub around which much of our parliamentary life revolves and lies behind our existing practices of parliamentary disclosure of official information.
In essence, it means that ministers have to provide truthful information about the exercise of their responsibilities in order that an account can be rendered in parliament.
Over the years different mechanisms have been developed for the disclosure of information, parliamentary Order Paper questions being a prime example of the mechanism for eliciting factual information.
A failure to provide to the House truthful information is considered a grave offence. After a careful review of various precedents, in 1978 Speaker Jerome summarized in the form of a question what I think is still the convention of this House. I quote:
Does that lead to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House or a member has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such a result? If I find so, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
Conventions governing responses to written parliamentary questions have been established to govern the disclosure of information by government to parliament. Such conventions have recognized that a balance must be struck between the legitimate requirements of government to have a certain degree of privacy for the proper conduct of its business and the need to ensure that parliament has the factual information which it requires to scrutinize the executive and hold ministers to account.
It is right for members and for the Chair to ask themselves if sanctioning the tabling of obviously false information to parliamentary questions strengthens or weakens our parliamentary institutions. A parliamentary democracy cannot function unless parliamentarians are permitted to know what their government is up to.
An approach to written parliamentary questions that does not respect the fundamental feature of our system will undermine rather than strengthen Canadian parliamentary democracy.
Where does it leave us if we disregard the fundamental principles of ministerial responsibility?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will remind honourable members that to assume that any member of the House ever states anything but the truth would be in itself a breach of the standing orders of this House.
I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I placed Question No. 33 on the Order Paper last October. The answers given by the government to Question No. 33 appear to be, in whole or in part, simply false. I am concerned that the government's response hinders and obstructs the work of parliament and its members and has the effect of diminishing respect for this House.
The question inquired into what involvement ministers of the crown had in an issue that arose in 1995. Sport fishing lodges in July and August 1995 refused to comply with the requirements of the Fisheries Act. The act required lodges to provide accurate and timely catch data to the department of fisheries so it could manage the chinook fishery on an almost daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, 1995 was a year much like 1998. In 1995 chinook were expected to return to spawn in dangerously low numbers. In 1998 it is coho.
The government states in its response to parts (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Question No. 33 that no minister of the crown or their staff other than the fisheries minister and his staff were involved. Departmental documents suggest otherwise.
The department of fisheries has provided me, under the Access to Information Act, documents that go to the credibility and veracity of the claim that ministers of the crown and their staff were not involved. The documents refer to ministerial involvement. The documents have fisheries managers complaining of political pressure. The documents reveal a meeting or meetings between a minister of the crown from Victoria and his political staff and the lodge owners. The documents detail a possible threat from the Minister of Industry to go to the Prime Minister to have fisheries officers stand back while the Oak Bay Marine Group flouted the law and let conservation be damned.
Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient with me and I will quickly cite specifics.
A July 21, 1995 briefing note prepared for and given to the minister, the member for Victoria, states:
Meeting with David Anderson's office, the Sport Fishing Institute and representatives from Queen Charlotte Island lodge operators regarding management ventures implemented in Areas 1 and 2.
Another note, dated July 25, reads:
The attached briefing note was used to brief Randy Pettipas of Minister Anderson's office.
This indicates that responses to (a), (b) and (f) are in whole or in part false.
Another document reveals the fisheries minister's office demanding ammunition to fend off the Minister of Industry who was threatening to go to the Prime Minister. It reads:
Judd Buchanan has convinced John Manley's office that our actions regarding Queen Charlotte Island sports fishery may be punitive and unjustified. Manley's office and Buchanan are suggesting that they might take this issue directly to the Prime Minister.
The political aid acting in the name of the minister of fisheries concluded his demand to the regional director general for the Pacific region with:
We would like this information by the end of this afternoon. Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know what we might expect.
Finally, in reply to Question No. 33(d), the government told the House that no ministers or their staff participated in the Pacific salmon management teleconference calls once the sport fishing lodges refused to supply vital catch data in July and August.
Part (d) asked if ministers of the crown or their staff participated in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific salmon management teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide such data.
Departmental documents made available by the department of fisheries under the Access to Information Act indicate that the current minister of fisheries, then in another portfolio and a minister of the crown, did through his political staff participate in these management conference calls at a time when the lodges were refusing to provide the department of fisheries with the necessary catch data such that the department could manage the fishery to protect fragile chinook stocks.
I quote from a document entitled “Speaking Points for the Deputy Minister”:
On August 15, [1995] the bi-weekly salmon management conference call between departmental officials was extended to include participation from—Minister Tobin's office and Mark Cameron, Minister Anderson's office.
Again, the response given to the House to part (d) of Question No. 33 is incorrect.
The current minister of fisheries, then and now the lead minister from British Columbia, and a spokesman in cabinet for the Sport Fishing Institute, a lobby organization of lodge owners, and for Bob Wright, the largest lodge operator on the west coast, did through a member of his political staff participate in these management discussions once the lodges had refused to obey the requirements of the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Speaker, in a question of privilege on the accuracy of responses to written questions by a previous minister of fisheries, Mr. Tobin, on December 13, 1994 you stated:
I do not in any way minimize the seriousness of this question of privilege raised—He surely has a grievance which perhaps can be corrected without proceeding to a complete point of privilege. I hope the hon. member for Delta and perhaps the member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans might come together to resolve this particular grievance. I want the House to understand that I do take this very seriously when a member feels that he or she is in any way impeded from performing his or her duties as members of Parliament. I would give this assurance that I will return to the member from Delta if indeed he does not get a response to his grievance in discussions with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In conclusion, I am concerned that such obviously false responses should be allowed to stand on the parliamentary record.
Canada Labour Code May 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address issues relating to Bill C-19 and the Canada Labour Code. I want to bring to the attention of the House my concerns both as to what the government has failed to include in the bill as well as the problems with proposed amendments to the labour code.
Let me first address an incident where the Canada Labour Code failed to protect the health and safety of a federal government employee and ought to be strengthened. While the focus of Bill C-19 is on collective bargaining, the labour code itself deals with the health and safety of federal government employees.
Canadians have a right to expect their government to be a model employer that takes great care to see that its employees are not unnecessarily put in life threatening situations. Yet the facts suggest that the government has often been careless with the lives of its employees. The labour code is the first line of defence of an employee of the federal government yet it often fails them. Let me give a specific example.
Dean Miller was a fisheries officer in Prince Rupert. He was required to take white water survival training in the Kitimat River on September 18, 1996. Dean died of a heart attack that day. He was forced to take a course that he probably did not need and definitely should not have been asked to participate in. Dean was a supervisor who worked in an office in Prince Rupert. There was no obvious reason for him to be ordered to take a rigorous white water survival course; his job never required it. Dean had a pacemaker and a serious heart condition. He never should have been forced to take such a course.
The law requires that federal employees taking rigorous and demanding survival courses first be approved as medically fit by the Department of Health. Dean was never approved as medically fit by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health. More than likely if such a medical test had been done, Dean would have been excluded from that course. Perhaps he would have been alive today. He certainly would not have died in the Kitimat River.
The minimal requirements of the labour code were never enforced. Dean had not neglected his health or his wife and family. He had a check-up only months before his death. The medical report from that check-up stated: “His fatigue has continued. In fact over the last four to five years it may be worse. He finds that when he exercises he gets tired with some breathlessness”. Nevertheless Dean took the course because he believed it would protect his job and thus his family.
After Dean's death the department of human resources stepped in and shut down the mandatory white water survival course under authority of section 145 of part II of the code. A directive was issued to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that stated:
On September 18, 1996 the undersigned safety officer conducted an investigation into the fatality of Dean Miller on the Kitimat River, a workplace operated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—being an employer subject to the Canada Labour Code.
The said safety officer considers that a condition exists that constitutes a danger to an employee while at work.
Employees are participating in a swift water rescue—course without a risk evaluation having been conducted or physical fitness ability (medical condition) of employees having been conducted contrary to section 124 [of the code].
It is now clear that DFO had been failing to follow the requirements of the Canada Labour Code for years. No real action has been taken against those who required Dean Miller to take this rigorous survival course even though he had a pacemaker and a serious heart condition. Dean died while on the mandatory course.
Thankfully a safety officer acting under the Canada Labour Code shut down the program, but only after Dean died. No action was ever taken against the DFO officials who ordered Dean to take the safety course. The only person who has suffered was the DFO safety officer. He was concerned by the lax attitude to employee safety in his own department. He was forced out of the department for speaking out on the death of Dean Miller.
I brought Dean's death to the attention of the minister of human resources on April 25, 1997. I asked that a review of the procedures be undertaken that required a fisheries officer with a very serious pre-existing medical condition to take a white water survival course and for a copy of such a review when it was completed. I have never received a satisfactory reply. I ask again today for a reply from the minister on the death of Dean Miller.
Let me now turn to the amendments to the code contained in Bill C-19. Section 87.7 has been of concern to employers in British Columbia. It is said that section 87.7 has a laudable objective: to keep prairie grain moving to the markets. I think we all agree with that point.
I suspect the real intention of the bill though is to make life easier for the Minister of Labour and his staff. They claim it is too much bother to deal with disputes that tie up the shipment of grain. If the shipment of grain is too difficult for the minister, then let him step aside.
B.C. industry believes that section 87.7 is a mistake. It points out that Mr. Justice Estey has been asked to report to the government on grain transportation and handling. It suggests that it is premature to take this action prior to the Estey commission even having completed its report.
Industry in my province believes that section 87.7 may lengthen labour disputes. It believes that striking employees may have less incentive to bargain.
The B.C. economy depends on trade. Forest products and coal are no less important to the B.C. economy than grain is to the prairies. If this provision has the effect of prolonging industrial disputes in British Columbia, then it is a mistake. If it makes our ports less competitive with their American counterparts, it is a mistake.
There are two ports in Delta—South Richmond, the Delta port at Roberts Bank and the Fraser port facility. I have yet to hear from any user of either that section 87.7 will advance the ports in Delta—South Richmond.
It has been said that the grain provision is counterproductive and fundamentally at cross purposes with the government's widely supported efforts on the international trade file.
It is unreasonable and unacceptable that prairie grain shipments will have access to British Columbia ports during a strike, while B.C. based exports will not.
Industry leaders have outlined a number of negative consequences and equity considerations raised by section 87.7. They point out that commodity producers in the forestry, mining, petrochemical, energy and manufacturing industries will not be able to export or import goods through a B.C. port affected by a strike, yet grain exports would continue.
Allowing grain exports to continue during a strike will likely prolong and not shorten work stoppages as employees providing services to grain vessels will have less incentive to settle.
There is considerable potential for transportation handling business usually undertaken by Canadian ports and railways to be lost as firms re-route their products and services through the U.S. Many commodities currently handled at west coast port facilities can be transferred to facilities in Seattle or Tacoma, Washington, or Portland, Oregon. Once business is lost, experience shows it is hard to get it back.
I have yet to hear any business or spokesman for port employees in my province requesting this provision or speaking convincingly in support of it.
On April 27 the British Columbia Employers Association asked the Minister of Labour for relief from section 87.7. It said:
We believe that—the discriminatory grain provisions unnecessarily threaten Canada's economy by jeopardizing Canada's reputation as a reliable importer and exporter of commodities to world markets. The impact on the western economy will be devastating.
The Business Council of British Columbia has also asked the Minister of Labour for relief. It states:
As you know from your consultation with western stakeholders as well as from numerous presentations made by western industries and associations to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the special grain provisions contained in section 87.7—pose a serious threat to the competitiveness of west coast ports and the economy of western Canada as a whole—non-grain commodities represent up to 87% of the total dollar value of the cargo moved through the port of Vancouver alone—these commodities may remain stagnant in the event of an extended strike indirectly subsidized by the mandatory movement of grain.
Given the tenuous position of the current western economy as a result of the drop in world oil prices and the Asia crisis, such a threat to future economic stability could not come at a worse time.
Weyerhaeuser Canada, a Vancouver based company, believes section 87.7 needlessly threatens the forestry sector and potentially the communities of western Canada that depend on exports and imports through the ports.
In conclusion, as a member of this House from British Columbia and having two major ports in my riding, I feel it is important that these matters and concerns be brought to the attention of this House and that the government take note.
Questions On The Order Paper May 12th, 1998
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.
Questions On The Order Paper May 12th, 1998
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?
Questions On The Order Paper May 11th, 1998
With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges, in particular the lodges owned by Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by section 61 of the Fisheries Act and meetings or conversations between Ministers and the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia: ( a ) did any Minister of the Crown meet or have conversations with either the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia in the summer of 1995, in 1996 and in 1997, and if so, who attended these meetings or participated in these conversations; ( b ) did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Justice or other agency prepare briefing material or otherwise brief any Minister of the Crown or their staff for any of these meetings or conversations; ( c ) when were Ministers of the Crown or their offices first informed that lodges, including those of the Oak Bay Marine Group, were refusing to provide catch data; ( d ) did any Ministers or their staff participate in the Department of Fisheries Pacific Salmon Management Teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group lodges to supply catch data; ( e ) were Ministers of the Crown briefed on June 11, 1997 or thereafter on the refusal of sport fishing lodges to povide catch data to the Department of Fisheries in 1995 and the legal actions on-against them; ( f ) did any Minister or their staff meet with officials of Oak Bay Marine Group in 1995, 1996 and 1997 (other than in the occasions referenced above) and on any of those occasions did the company make clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch data to the Department of Fisheries, and ( g ) did any Minister of the Crown go fishing with a representative of Oak Bay Marine Group in August of 1997, what was the date of the fishing trip and who was in the party in addition to the Minister?
Questions Passed As Orders For Return May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the unsatisfactory answer on the previous question, I asked Question No. 56 on December 2, 1997. It has to do again with the same two individuals.
I must say that these questions are of some importance because they have to do with the Chinook salmon fishery of which 47 runs in British Columbia are at high risk.
I would like to know when I can expect an answer to this question. On December 2 the question was asked. The 45 days is long gone.