Georges Farrah

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too will be very brief. I think we agree on the need for or the importance of the small craft harbour at Mont-Louis.

As regards the studies that are currently being done concerning the department's priorities, including for Quebec—because the money for this port must come from the budget allocated to Quebec—we will ensure, as we have done in the past, that we can adequately respond to the desire of the public and meet the needs expressed.

This is not just a question of what people want, but of what the department must do, given the importance of the small craft harbour at Mont-Louis and the work that needs to be done.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Matapédia—Matane, for his comments and for raising this debate here in the House, during what we call the late show. This is an issue that is very important for the community of Mont-Louis in the Gaspé and in his riding.

The minister and the department are very conscious, as am I, of the importance of port infrastructure for communities like Mont-Louis and others in eastern Quebec. The same is true for my riding, where there are a great number of these facilities, as well as in the maritime provinces and in western Canada.

Already last year, the member and even the fisheries committee, of which he and I are both members, had raised the issue of the situation regarding small craft harbours across the country.

For the benefit of my colleagues in the House, I would like to point out that the small craft harbours program is responsible for approximately 1,400 fishing harbours in Canada. In all, these facilities accommodate and serve close to 30,000 fishing vessels and 20,000 pleasure craft.

The department is also responsible for more than 4,700 different structures, including wharfs, breakwaters, boat ramps and channels in fishing harbours.

So it will be understood that, as far as assets are concerned, we have a fairly considerable number, which translates into enormous pressure on the departmental budget.

As the hon. member has also said, that is why the government, in its 2001 budget, showed sensitivity to the situation of small craft harbours by investing, or adding, $100 million over five years to the present budget, over and above the regular small craft harbours budget, precisely so as speed up construction or repair to these wharves so that fishers and fish processing companies would have access to quality facilities.

As I had already indicated to the hon. member when he asked me a question in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, Mont-Louis is definitely one of the ports to which the department attaches importance. In fact, the departmental planning is based on a determination of the relative importance of ports, based on economic activity.

However, as the member has pointed out, the wharf at Mont-Louis is vital to maintaining the economic activity of that community. Consequently, I can assure the member that the department, the minister and myself are very much aware of the situation there.

At this time, as I said in my response in the House, it is still too soon to inform the member, or to announce a definite decision, since departmental programming for the 2003-04 budget in terms of small craft harbour investment is not yet known. In light of the importance of this issue, however, and the work required, I can assure the member that the department will be doing its utmost to be able to meet the needs of the people of Mont-Louis, particularly the fishers and the fish processing companies.

[Question No. 128, March 28th, 2003]

The seniority of personnel does not figure into the processes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) uses to engage employees of the Canadian Coast Guard. DFO along with all other federal government departments, is governed by the principle of merit as outlined in the Public Service Employment Act (section 10), which reads as follows:

1. (1) Appointments to or from within the Public Service shall be based on selection according to merit, as determined by the Commission, and shall be made by the Commission, at the request of the deputy head concerned, by competition or by such other process of personnel selection designed to establish the merit of candidates as the Commission considers is in the best interests of the Public Service.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), selection according to merit may, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations of the Commission, be based on the competence of a person being considered for appointment as measured by such standard of competence as the Commission may establish, rather than as measured against the competence of other persons.

For releases, reverse order of merit is applied, as outlined in the Public Service Employment Regulations (subsection 32 (1)), which reads as follows:

1. (1) If the services of one or more employees of a part of an organization are no longer required in accordance with section 29 of the Act, the appropriate deputy head shall assess the merit of the employees employed in similar positions in the same occupational group and level within that part of the organization, and identify the employees who may be declared surplus and laid off in reverse order of merit.

Seniority could only figure into the process to release employees, in the event of a tie between individuals being assessed in the reverse order of merit.

[Question No. 102, March 28th, 2003]

The answer is as follows:

a) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not collect this particular statistical information on the food, social and ceremonial fisheries. Fish stored in freezers are stored in the name of a company or individual and not by fishery or species.

b) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.

c) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.

d) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.

e) In the early years of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) program (1992-1997), two AFS agreements on the Fraser River, the Musqueam/Tsawwassen First Nations joint agreement and the Sto:Lo First Nation agreement, required a percentage of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organizations. Pursuant to the AFS agreement, from 1993 to the present on the Skeena River, 10% of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold under the AFS agreement is required to be returned to the Skeena fisheries management program during years when there is an excess salmon to spawning requirements (ESSR) fishery in place. No funds were required to be returned to DFO.

f) DFO cannot determine the value of fish sold under the pilot sales fisheries. DFO does not record the portion of pilot sales fisheries that is retained for food as compared to the amounts sold. With respect to the ESSR fishery on the Skeena River, due to concerns from the Skeena first nation regarding commercial confidentiality, available information regarding commercial catches and values for individual bands and companies has not been provided.

g) According to the AFS agreements noted in the answer to e), the percentage of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold, which was to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization, varied between 5% and 15% on the Fraser River; and 10% of the landed value of salmon harvested and then sold for the Skeena ESSR fisheries.

h) The aboriginal organizations reported the following amounts collected under each of the agreements, which was to be returned to their fisheries management programs. (The requirement for a percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization was not applied to fish caught for food, social and ceremonial purposes.) In 1992, the Musqueam and Tsawwassen first nations reported $4,996 was returned to their fisheries management program. In 1993, the Musqueam first nation reported $11,891 and the Sto:Lo first nation reported $25,457 (which was a payment instead of returning a percentage of the landed value of salmon sold under their AFS agreement to their fisheries management program). In 1994, the Sto:Lo indicated that $178,036 from a one-time only specific fishery was returned to their fisheries management program. In 1995, the Musqueam first nation reported that $48,373 was returned to their fisheries program. The Sto:Lo first nation did not have a pilot sales fishery in 1995. In 1996, the Musqueam first nation reported that $60,550 was returned to their fisheries management program, while the Sto:Lo first nation again did not have a pilot sales fishery. In 1997 the Sto:Lo reported that $67,053 was returned to their fisheries management program. With respect to the Skeena ESSR fishery, DFO has not collected this data.

i) On the Fraser River, the buyers of the fish withheld from the fishers the percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement that was required to be returned to the fisheries management program. Individual first nations or first nations’ groups collected the proceeds on the Skeena ESSR fishery.

j) On the Fraser River, the buyers of the fish withheld proceeds of the fish from the distribution of the sales and then provided them to the respective first nation.

k) In 1994, a specific fishery was provided to the Sto:Lo first nation as noted in the answer to h) above. There have been no special fisheries provided for the Skeena ESSR Fisheries for which the percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement was to be returned to the fisheries management program.

l) Revenues from the proceeds were to be used for the fisheries management programs of the aboriginal organizations in question.

m) The first nations in receipt of the proceeds spent the monies.

n) There were three reported instances concerning the Sto:Lo first nation where the percentage collected was less than the amount required under the agreement: in 1994, where DFO determined there were inconsistencies in some of the reporting of the fisheries; in 1995, when the salmon runs were poor; and, in 1996, when the pilot sales fisheries were severely hampered by protest fisheries.

o) In the case of the Sto:Lo first nation, with respect to the specific fishery in 1994, DFO contracted KPMG to undertake an audit because of inconsistencies in some of the reporting of the fisheries. As a result, the amount reported by Sto:Lo from this fishery as well as the amount of the shortfall, was deducted from the total DFO financial commitment to the group under their 1994 AFS agreement. In 1995, DFO was satisfied that poor salmon runs prevented the Sto:Lo from harvesting the amount set out in their agreements. In 1996, DFO was satisfied that the Sto:Lo first nation made every reasonable attempt to harvest their quota but were unsuccessful, and, therefore, DFO did not require Sto:Lo to collect the proceeds which were to be used for the fisheries management programs.

p) With respect to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, see the answer to o) above.

q) Where there was no requirement for a percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization, DFO did not collect this data.

r) The main reason for the non-requirement was the fact that the run size did not support a pilot sales fishery and thus no fishing occurred.

[Mont-Louis Wharf, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the small craft harbours program for this year has not yet been announced, but it will be forthcoming quite soon. This is about the time of year that the announcements are made.

Given the importance of this matter, the minister will surely take note of it and will advise us accordingly, in due course.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member on his remarks. I must say we miss him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He did an outstanding job when he was a member of this committee. I think his presence here tonight shows how much he is interested in fisheries, and I congratulate him.

Maybe the hon. member did not have time to elaborate on aquaculture. He said, and rightly so, that there are often opposing views on aquaculture. Some are very much in favour, and others opposed.

I would like to know the hon. member's personal position on this. Should we go ahead and develop aquaculture, in particular on the west coast?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our colleague who talked, among other things, about certain government policies with respect to small craft harbours. At least he acknowledged that there was an increase in the budgets. Obviously, it is never enough, but it must be admitted that in last year's budget, another $100 million was added over five years in addition to the regular budget. I think this is important.

One way of softening the blow of a reduction in groundfish fishing, or a possible moratorium, is to try to set up a compensation program. If there is a moratorium, I can tell you that obviously we will work very hard to try to put together a compensation package.

One of the problems is that people are currently buying cod permits at very high prices, $50,000 or $60,000, when there are no cod in the gulf. It is illogical. Permits are renewed yet there are no fish, or very few. Why is this happening? People do this in order to have a share of the crab. The minister reserves a quantity of crab. He doles it out to fishers who are having difficulties. Then these fishers buy high-priced permits and pay with the crab they receive.

The question I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the member for Matapédia—Matane, is this: given that it is very likely that crab will continue to be shared among groundfish fishers, does the minister have any thoughts on who should be entitled to the share and whether he thinks that those who purchase permits at a high price at the last minute should be entitled to a share?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments. I think that it is worth noting that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans works well together. The concerns of both the west coast and the east coast are defended, which gives us a good idea of what is happening across the country.

The member mentioned aquaculture. I think that there is a lot to be learned from the west about aquaculture, given the number of years they have been practising it out west. We know that the resource problem is getting worse and worse. Aquaculture may be a worthwhile alternative if done properly, while respecting sustainable development.

My colleague mentioned that he supports aquaculture. I would like to know if that is the position of the Canadian Alliance and if his party supports developing aquaculture. Could the member give me his party's position on this?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, my colleague said earlier that the people in communities would be hit hard by a moratorium, that people want to fish.

He says that we should decentralize fish management, that all of the officials are at 200 Kent Street. We may or may not agree on this point.

Given that we have a specific short term problem and that there is a lack of resources that will have quite a negative impact on our communities, what does the member suggest to respond to the crisis we are experiencing? What would be his suggestion, other than to say that people want to fish? We agree with him on that, but if there were no fish, what would he do?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I listened very closely to my hon. colleague's speech. However, I would like to point out a few inconsistencies and perhaps give him the opportunity to enlighten us.

First, he said that in the past the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans always worked without really consulting anyone or, if there were consultations, they were a sham because no one was listening to the fishers.

The decision by the minister last year to allow the seal quota to increase to 305,000 individuals, and to increase it again this year over a three year period up to 975,000, clearly shows that the minister listened to what the fishers have been demanding for many years, which is to increase the quota.

On one hand, the member said, “Look, maybe the minister should not have talked about the possibility of a moratorium last autumn, because it sent shock waves through the communities concerned by this issue”. On the other hand, he said, “They act quietly, in secret”. I think the minister was being honest when he said that the depletion of the cod stocks was a serious issue. Some decisions are hard to make. It took a lot of strength and honesty to warn these people that there were some serious problems with the cod stocks.

Therefore, I think the hon. member would acknowledge that, last fall, following their conference, Atlantic ministers asked the minister to take action. So, the government could not have acted in secret. It acted quite openly. I would like the member to clarify that for us.

The other point may be more telling. The hon. member told us that Quebec's share of quotas dropped by 32,000 tons from 1995 to 2000.

This is what I would like the member to tell us: if Quebec's share has been so drastically reduced, does he not remember that, between 1995 and 2000, it was the Bloc members who travelled to the maritime regions of Quebec to defend the interests of their province and who then let huge quotas be transferred to the other provinces, at the expense of Quebec.