Georges Farrah

[Fisheries, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the department is looking at how to be more efficient given our current financial resources. A number of options are on the table. Currently, it is quite premature to give the hon. member a specific answer about this fund.

Absolutely, yes, there are a number of options being considered. However, right now, no cuts to this program are planned.

[Fisheries, May 16th, 2003]

No, Mr. Speaker, there is no such indication, and the department does not intend, at this time, to eliminate the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. It is doing an exceptional job.

When he met with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the minister indicated that he will perhaps consider how things have been done up to now and look too, with the stakeholders, at how this situation can be improved with regard to managing the resources and the role of science.

Currently, there are no plans to exclude the FRCC from consultations with the industry.

[Official Visit by Prime Minister of France, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, the Prime Minister of France, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, will be in Ottawa next Wednesday at the start of his first official visit to Canada. He will be in Canada a total of four days.

He will be accompanied by ministers of foreign trade, industry and cooperation and la Francophonie as well as business leaders. Hon. members hardly need reminding that, in addition to our strong cultural ties, France is also the second largest foreign investor in Canada.

Prime Minister Raffarin and his Canadian counterpart will be discussing bilateral trade, the international situation and cultural diversity, along with commemorations of the 400th anniversary for the first French settlement in North America.

The government sees these commemorations, which will start gathering momentum next year, as a wonderful opportunity for drawing attention to the richness of our relations with one of Canada's two mother countries.

Vive la France. Vive le Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think we agree on one thing: it is urgent that we take action. As the member mentioned, the problem with respect to the seals is not that the people of the Lower North Shore do not have access to them—we already have a quota and they can use it—but they have a hard time getting to the seals, given the ice conditions this year. Whatever the situation might be, if these people cannot go hunting, even if we keep a quota for them, will they be able to get to the seals with the condition of the ice this year?

All this to say that there is a possibility. We are looking at the regional level, at the Quebec level. As the member said, he talked with government officials. In Quebec, we will try to arrange for a specific quota to be authorized and allocated specifically for the Lower North Shore. If we can achieve that, we will gladly do so, given the urgency of the situation and the potential for economic development based on this resource for the people of the Lower North Shore.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this question today. This is, in fact, a question of the utmost importance and great urgency; obviously, I am well aware of the current situation affecting the Lower North Shore.

Along the Lower North Shore, communities are small and isolated, which increases the economic difficulties they are experiencing. These people depend on fishing for everything and, consequently, with everything that is happening with the fisheries, their suffering is understandable. So it is very appropriate that the hon. member raise this question in the House.

Unfortunately, we have the situation along the Lower North Shore, particularly in zone 13 with regard to crab, as well as cod. The minister decided a few weeks ago to impose a moratorium on cod, although, if I am not mistaken, most fishers in this region are after crab and not cod, although a few are. So, this region is in zone 13 and there is no crab fishing this year, since the biomass did not allow the department to develop a fishing plan; this would have endangered the resource.

There is also another factor, related to cod fishing. The moratorium has effectively prevented cod fishing and groundfishing.

So, obviously these decisions were not made lightly. The hon. member will doubtless agree. This is an unusual situation and that is why we are working to develop a plan to help the Lower North Shore.

The member has just referred to Economic Development Canada, and the fact that the $14 million project might not necessarily apply, since there are not many cod fishers left. So the fishers that are the victims of the zone 13 closure for crab will not benefit, because this only applied to cod

Even there—and I do not know whether the secretary of state has indicated this—we are working to integrate these communities into the project, given the urgency of the situation.

In the days to come, the minister will be in a position to announce other fisheries plans, and we trust that these will be able to include something for the people of the Lower North Shore. I can assure the hon. member that, at my humble level, I am bringing all possible pressure to bear in order to see that the Lower North Shore is eligible to be included in any future fisheries plans, so that these fishers will have access to at least a minimal resource.

However, the hon. member has also mentioned the seal catch. The minister has demonstrated some openness when it comes to raising the seal hunt quota in this region. Looking at the traditional takes on the Lower North Shore, we can see that they have been at more or less the same level for the past few years. If fishers could have more access to seal, and be better equipped for this type of hunt, there is no doubt that the department is fully prepared to offer supplementary seal hunt quotas, among other things, in order to give these fishers access to a resource that is in abundance and not the object of any moratorium.

All this to say that we are very much aware of the situation and of its urgency, so I want the hon. member to know that we are putting everything we can into the balance to ensure that there is some good news to announce within the next few days. We know that the situation is urgent.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased and moved to be able to speak this evening in this emergency debate on the cod moratorium in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which was ordered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last week.

Moved, because I am also aware of the impact such a decision will have on the communities affected, both in Newfoundland and in Labrador. As far as Quebec is concerned, only my riding is affected by this decision. Given the economic situation prevailing in our area, as you know, a decision like this one will do still more harm to people who are already in very precarious situations economically.

I must say that the minister has nevertheless reached a very brave decision, one that was not easy. It was certainly no pleasure for the minister to take this step, since he was aware that any such decision would have a heavy impact on the affected communities.

It must be admitted, however, that in reaching such a decision the minister is respecting his first mandate: respect and protection of the resource. That is the mandate of a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Second, it is a visionary decision as well, as the minister needs to ensure, within a long term perspective, that the cod will be able to come back and future generations will be able to reap the benefits.

Perhaps we can debate the past, decisions made over the past ten years, but the situation is such that we are confronted with a fact: fish stocks, cod stocks in particular, are greatly endangered, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is why the minister feels obliged to reach such a decision, such a courageous decision.

Everyone agrees that the minister's decision, one that was not any easy one, was the best one to be make. Even former Conservative fIsheries and oceans minister John Crosbie, a Newfoundlander, and Brian Tobin, also a former fIsheries and oceans minister, have stated publicly that this was the best decision to make, that the minister has made a very courageous decision, the one on the right track, the one that had to be taken.

It is worth noting that former fisheries and oceans ministers who have known similar situations, for whom things have not have been easy, who might even have ignored scientific advice because of political lobbies and who might have lacked courage at the time, are now saying that the minister has made the right decision. I think that this has to be pointed out.

This does not prevent the affected communities from being hard hit. This is why we have put forward a compensation plan. A little earlier, I was listening to my colleagues, who were talking about it and saying that it might not be enough and that more money would be needed. Of course there is never enough money.

However, I think that this is a step in the right direction. We are talking about $44 million for Newfoundland and Quebec, that is $25 million for Newfoundland and about $15 million for Quebec. This is essentially a short term solution. It will allow us to develop very short term projects.

We all know that it will not solve all the problems, but the money will temporarily help people who have problems, people who need basic necessities for their families and for themselves. I think that it really proves that somebody has acted responsibly in that regard.

Second, and this is the important element, and that is what we have been saying, we will have to work on long term solutions, in cooperation with the industry, with the processing firms, with the fishermen and with the plant workers. We have to work in cooperation with them to promote economic diversification process, diversification of the industry, to make up for a difficult decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

It is therefore a short term measure aimed at helping those people to get a minimum income so that they can provide for their own needs, and also at working with the whole industry to develop transitional and diversification measures.

This is how we will be able to work with the industry. Some people have said, “Yes, but why have you not come up with specific programs? Why have you not indicated what direction you want to go in?” We have not done so because we do not want to unilaterally impose a program from Ottawa on people who are affected by the minister's decision.

What have we said? We have said that we will work together with these people. Both parties will try to come up with a solution for economic diversification, both in terms of production and in terms of different sectors of activity.

That is why we are not coming in with concrete measures. We want to do that with the people who are affected and who are knowledgeable in their field. That is what the government wants to do. In the short term, we will take action, but at the same time, we need to take a long term approach.

We will discuss developing the seal industry more. The minister made a courageous decision over the winter, to increase the seal hunt quotas in a multi-year plan over three years that will see almost one million seals being taken in the next few years.

In fact, one thing must be said. Even if we were to increase the seal quota to two, three of four million seals, we do not have a market at this point for these seals. As a result, we need to increase the size of the hunt, but at the same time, we need to work with the industry to develop new niche markets. Then, these new markets will justify increasing the size of the hunt so that it benefits communities, on the one hand, and helps the cod stocks recover on the other. After all, the seal is definitely a major predator of the cod stocks.

The easiest decision for the minister to make would have been to allow the cod fishery to continue, despite scientific advice. It would have caused further deterioration of the stocks, which would have taken even longer to recover. That was the challenge the minister was faced with.

It would have been easy to say, “I am making a short term decision, and in two, three of four years, there will likely be another Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he or she can deal with the problem”.

There might be some opposition to it, which is to be expected since its impact on communities is harsh. But it must be recognized that the minister made a decision which, I believe, is wise since future generations are at stake.

One of the problems is due to the fact that when the cod fishery was reopened in 1997 and 1998, we had quotas of up to 6,000 tonnes in the gulf. I believe--and I might be wrong, but this is my humble opinion--that this decision significantly delayed the recovery of stocks.

If we look at the quotas that could have been allotted this year, we are talking of 3,000 tonnes according to the FRCC report. When we look at the number of fishermen involved, 3,000 tonnes would have been a mere pittance for fishermen, in view of their numbers and the meagre quotas that would have been allotted. So, on the one hand, the desired economic level to make fishing viable for fishermen would not have been reached and, on the other hand, it would have further jeopardized cod stocks, in a big way.

This essentially is why the minister had to make this decision. He did not do it light heartedly, we admit that. My community in the Gaspé has been hit just as hard as communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is tough. Gaspe Cure--which simply put produces dried salt cod--operates only in Quebec and in my riding. We are talking about 400 jobs. God knows it is not easy in an area such as mine to lose probably 400 jobs as a result of the minister's decision. But he had no choice.

This is why the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and the Gaspé office have already met with the industry leaders of Gaspe Cure yesterday. This was to ensure that we would work with them, with this $14 million provided to Quebec, to find a way to help workers and industry leaders during these hard times, to find a way to negotiate and to work with these people to devise a diversification model for their production and our economy.

Of course, this does not meet all the needs. We cannot tell exactly everything that happened. This would cost a fortune. However, I believe that the government has honestly and objectively shown its goodwill, despite this difficult decision. It wants to help these people, who have quite rightly asked for assistance, which we must provide them with.

As the minister indicated earlier, of course, other decisions have been taken concerning this closure. As you know, the minister will also ban trawling in specific zones where cod used to spawn, that is cod reproduction zones. We know that the minister has also taken a decision relating to the caplin fishery reduction, knowing that cod eats a large quantity of this species.

As I have already said, the minister has also reached a decision on the seal hunt, namely to raise the seal hunting quota for the next three years. This is a clear indication of our willingness to achieve a set of interventions that will show we have learned from past mistakes.

Of course we could review past events and say, “The poor management dates back five, ten or twelve years”. That does not solve the problem, however. This is why we are here with concrete actions, ones we honestly believe will bring about improvements to the situation. We are definitively not in a position to say at this point how many years it will take to rebuild the stocks. It can take a very long time, unfortunately.

The problem is that we cannot give the fishers fish we do not have. That is the dynamic we are up against. I have heard fishers in my riding tell us, “This is how I earn my living; it is my tradition. It is something we do, generation after generation”. This is very praiseworthy and must be recognized as such.

It is one thing to recognize that, but it is another thing to be able to give them fish so they can fish. There are no fish, and this is why we have to make such difficult decisions. Even if the decision were reversed, there would still be no fish. Let us develop a plan to ensure that this resource is available later for these fishers—let us hope that it is as soon as possible—or, if that is not possible, for generations to come. That is the challenge that we are facing.

There is another factor that must be considered with regard to fishers. More and more, in other types of fisheries, such as crab and shrimp, because of the abundance of the resource and its price— the value of landings is considerably high in Canada because there is more activity in these fisheries—the department has been able, in previous years—and we hope that it will be the same in the future—, to redistribute part of this resource to fishers who are going through difficult times, especially groundfish fishers. This would give these fishers access to a minimum income. It would also make it easier to respect the fact that these people want to fish.

Miracles are not possible, but through the allocation of resources other than cod, which are the most lucrative and more abundant, these people could get, in some part, what they are asking. This would fulfill two requirements: ensure these fishers a minimum income for a decent living and, secondly, allow them to do what they want and dream of doing, which is fish.

Naturally, I listened to most of the comments and speeches this evening. On the whole, they were passionate. We represent our communities, and we know that this kind of decision is very hard on them. Such a decision was not taken lightly. However, it is essential to recognize very objectively that the minister had no choice. It is not true that we get up in the morning and say, “We want to make people suffer”. It is not true. That was not what happened.

In closing, I must say that we cannot give fish we do not have. That is the sad truth. However, the proposed action will ensure, in the intermediate and long term, a much more optimistic future. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the government is obligated to help these people during the transition. These people need an income. They are also proud people who want to make a decent living.

I cannot thank enough all the members of this House who took part in this debate. It was an extremely constructive debate. We all have the same goal here, which is to ensure the well-being of our constituents and the fishers, and I think that we will be able to achieve that goal.

[Shipping, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there has been a user-pay agreement in place since 1997 in connection with dredging of the St. Lawrence. At the present time, we are involved in discussions and negotiations with the parties involved.

I can tell you that what these people want in particular is a long term agreement so that they will be able to predict costs and thus be more competitive.

We are taking all of the information under advisement and when the negotiations are over we will be in a position to announce our decision.

[Fisheries, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am taken aback by the hon. member's comments. He said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did nothing for the Pacific coast, yet he himself congratulated the minister on the hake fishery issue, among others. We need no lesson from anyone. The west coast seal hunt is undoubtedly a very important issue. But before making a final decision, we must consider carefully all the implications.

[Fisheries, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague is raising a very important point concerning the seal hunt on the west coast.

As hon. members know, before making a final decision in this matter, naturally we must examine all the advice both about the biology and from the stakeholders. This could certainly be an interesting option, and I am convinced that the minister will consider it favourably.

[National Post, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as a proud Quebecker and Canadian, I want to express my outrage at an editorial published in the National Post today. This editorial suggests that widespread anti-Americanism in Quebec is behind its opposition to anything British or American.

In reality, the people of Quebec have very strong personal, commercial and historic ties with their neighbours to the south. Quebec is very attached to the United States. Just remember how extremely supportive Quebeckers were after the attacks on September 11.

Making such remarks about Quebeckers is unacceptable; they, like all Canadians, are tolerant, open-minded and respectful, and their choices are just as entitled to respect as the Americans'.