Madam Speaker, for Canadians watching this debate I would like to preface my remarks by saying that what we are debating is Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
The bill essentially deals with two issues relating to oceans. First, it deals with part of the oceans we designate as the oceans of Canada. Second, it deals with something called an oceans management strategy. I would like to direct my remarks on the oceans management strategy and some of the aspects that are of concern particularly to fishermen.
I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague opposite who just spoke. It was very interesting to hear the poetry and the talk about ocean ecology and all those good things. I would like to be more practical in this debate and talk about how we make sure that we have fish resources to harvest.
Other speakers have mentioned the enormous value to the Canadian economy of fisheries both on the east and west coasts and our inland fisheries. This is not a resource to toy with. It is not a part of our Canadian workforce that should be treated lightly because this has really a lot of impact for a great many Canadians.
I would suggest that there has been a bit of a misnomer about our oceans management strategy to date; it has been more oceans mismanagement. We see an oceans resource in complete disaster. So far there has been an unprecedented groundfish crisis on the east coast and we are minutes from disaster on the west coast particularly in the Fraser River fisheries.
We also have a population dependent on a resource that can no longer sustain a very large number of Canadian workers. There is a real pressure of numbers in the fisheries that is not going to go away and cannot be supported artificially forever.
We also have a minister who I suggest is not really dealing with these domestic issues. He is busy playing Captain Canada, talking about building his media image internationally. Even when his parliamentary secretary enters this debate it is to talk about the wonderful international image of the minister. That does not put food on the table of the fishermen of this country.
I think everyone would welcome a positive change in the way we are managing the fish resources and our oceans resources because we have a track record in this area that is not very inspiring to say the least. We look at the management strategy that is being put into place as a result of Bill C-98. We are looking for positive change. We are looking for changes to address some of the mismanagement of the past.
What do we see in this bill? We see two things that have not brought any relief, any hope or any positive response from the fishermen of this country. First, we have a government department that will become even more bloated but there are no precise lines of authority or management plan to help this increased government department do a better job of the mandate it has been given to manage the fisheries.
Second, the doors are being opened in this bill for increased fees on fishermen which the fishermen can hardly bear to shoulder. I quote from clause 50 of this Bill C-98 which states: "The minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, fix fees in respect of products, rights and privileges provided under this act". That is the section which has a lot of fishermen quaking in their boots.
The nice name of the oceans management strategy really hides an increased bureaucracy. The stated purpose of this increased bureaucracy is to get all government bodies to co-ordinate the related activities with respect to management and harvesting of the oceans. That is a good objective. It is an objective I think everyone in Canada would support. We certainly have a lot of cases in this country-and my friends from the Bloc often like to talk about this-of where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There is duplication and interference between different levels of government and different government bodies. That of course leads to a great deal of inefficiency and an enormous unnecessary cost. Pruning that back, streamlining and making it more efficient, downsizing, is what needs to be done. It is of course also what is being done across the board in the private sector. Organizations are flattening, downsizing, becoming more efficient and we have been calling for a long time for government to do the same.
We fail to see how this is going to happen by adding more layers of bureaucracy and more complexity to the workings of the department. There is no process identified in this bill to ensure more effective co-ordination. It is simply stated as a nice goal. A lot of roads are paved with good intentions but we need to see some real specifics in the way we set out our legislation if we hope to accomplish the stated aims.
In fact, there are no penalties or even any other consequences to any of these bodies that are supposedly being co-ordinated for failing to work in concert. We have more bureaucrats, more activity, more process being added, but no power to initiate activities that would get the objectives met or to ensure compliance by all of the bodies that are to be co-ordinated. There is no concrete planned agenda at all.
If this government is serious about the management of oceans, we believe it would give real power to the managing body. Management is only possible when there is some real authority and that is simply not happening. In fact, if government would stop thinking of ways to tinker with the system creating bloated government departments and instead get on with the job of protecting a valuable resource, everyone would be a lot better off.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is already a top heavy organization. Fishermen on both coasts will tell of their frustration in dealing with a department based in Ottawa which does not understand what their needs really are. Passing this bill would not send a positive message to these people who are already very frustrated.
It is now abundantly clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not committed to downsizing his bloated department. He would rather try and slip a new level of bureaucracy into his department under the guise of broad consultation rather than deal with the harsh realities of downsizing.
Canadians want less government and that is a message which must be sent over and over. Government members must get that message: Canadians want less government. They are tired of supporting and wrestling with and trying to deal with a huge and inefficient bureaucracy when they are trying to make a living and trying to live their lives and build their futures.
In Canada there are over 6,000 fisheries officials and they manage 65,000 licences. We have 6,000 officials and 65,000 licences. The department operates with a budget that exceeds three-quarters of a billion dollars and that is just for administrative costs. Clearly, there is room here for a little cost cutting to be taken at the top of this department, a department with over 6,000 officials and a budget of three-quarters of a billion dollars.
Madam Speaker, I am sure everyone will be waiting with bated breath to hear the end of this story after the vote.