John Duncan

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, December 16th, 1999]

With respect to non-Canadian visitors (not immigrants) for each of the last five calendar years (broken down by citizenship or nationality): ( a ) how many visitors entered Canada; ( b ) how many visitors were issued visitor's visas pursuant to section 9 of the Immigration Act of Canada; ( c ) how many of those visitor's visas were issued to visitors who had criminal records (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences); ( d ) how many visitor's visas were denied and of those how many were denied on the basis of the applicant having a criminal record (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences); ( e ) how many visitors who had criminal records (broken down by summary conviction and indictable offences) were knowingly permitted and denied entry under the immigration officer's discretion pursuant to section 19(3) of the Immigration Act of Canada?

Return tabled.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the deportation of obvious and blatant abuses of the system.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition requests that parliament give Canadian taxpayers a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years.

[Committees Of The House, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute of the time of the House to mention that the committee report is a very good one, but we have also appended a very good minority report.

It is important to point out that the government cannot abandon its responsibility, not only to the ramifications of the Marshall decision but to existing traditional fishermen involved in the Atlantic fishery, the maritime fishery.

We have emphasized some points in our minority report such as the importance of proportionality in terms of how much licensing is turned into aboriginal licensing within the all Canadian commercial fishery. Conservation is obviously important so we want one set of rules for one commercial fishery. We would like to see many of the rules, for example those on the food fishery, tightened up to simplify enforcement.

[Committees Of The House, December 16th, 1999]

Yes, there is.

[Committees Of The House, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, is there opportunity for the official opposition to make comment on the tabling of the fisheries report?

[Transport, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, somebody will be home for this question.

B.C. municipal governments and others are complaining about Department of Transport strong arm negotiating tactics and threats of demolition in attempts to transfer over 50 west coast docks.

For example, the dock at Ahousat is in great shape for at least another 10 years. It is the only large boat dock in the area. It is an essential port in a storm with a replacement value of $300,000. Why is the department planning to spend $130,000 to demolish it?

[Department Of Transport, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport is playing hardball with B.C. stakeholders in its abandoning of any interest in maintaining remote west coast docks and wharves. Stakeholders are complaining.

The department has been playing hardball with my office as well. I submitted an access to information request in April for DOT strategy and plans to devolve over 50 west coast dock facilities.

In June I was told the response was ready and only needed editing. In August, when it was clear that no progress had been made, I complained to the access commissioner, who shares my concern. Now it has been eight months, and still no response.

Access to information legislation designed to bring transparency to government is being subverted.

How can I represent west coast interests if I am hampered by departmental arrogance?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 433

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on October 1, 2008”

Motion No. 434

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on November 1, 2008”

Motion No. 435

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on December 1, 2008”

Motion No. 436

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on January 1, 2009”

Motion No. 437

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on February 1, 2009”

Motion No. 438

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:

“force on March 1, 2009”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 12, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”