Debates of June 5th, 2006

Fisheries and Oceans

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and to respond briefly to this motion that the government consider the advisability of raising the budget for the small craft harbours program tabled on behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

First, I would be remiss if I did not thank the member for Cardigan and other members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for their contribution to helping manage Canada's fisheries and oceans. The government certainly values what the committee has to say and our ears are always open.

Second, we support this motion. The spending plan that the member has referred to is a long term spending plan that was devised by the Liberal government and, of course, we would certainly like to consider the advisability of increasing the amount of money that goes to small craft harbours.

Therefore, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #11

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion lost.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what just happened proves that the current government is using the same tactics the former government did. They tried to gag the House on an extremely important issue, namely small craft harbours.

For years now, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the entire industry and all the communities in our regions have been asking for significant investment in small craft harbours. The reason is simple: according to every study we have read, the infrastructure is currently in disrepair and in many cases is extremely dangerous. This is a matter of safety for all the fishers in the entire industry and of survival of some plants, as is the case in my riding. As far as the Mont-Louis West harbour is concerned, it is simply a question of a plant's survival. If ships can no longer dock in this harbour, if the 20 shrimpers or the other fishers can no longer dock in this harbour, the plant might have to close its doors because the fishers will have to go further west or further east.

In December 2001, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans adopted a comprehensive report and study on the small craft harbours situation. We learned then that a $400 million investment was absolutely needed just to repair and maintain the small craft harbours.

The previous government's response was to add $20 million a year to the budget for five years, which represents a $100 million investment in small craft harbours. We needed $400 million. Given the fact that the small craft harbours continue to deteriorate and given climate change and its impact on rundown harbours, the impact is even greater. Now we need roughly $500 million or $525 million just to repair the small craft harbours. I am not talking about the regular maintenance of small craft harbours. I am talking about 1,203 harbours, from coast to coast, whose entire infrastructure has to be repaired. This is a problem in the regions.

I would point out that I will share the time allotted me with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, whose riding is affected even more than that of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, which is affected even more than the riding of Manicouagan, which is affected even more than all of the other ridings in Quebec. It is true for the Magdalen Islands, it is true for the Gaspé, it is true for the North Shore and it is true for the lower North Shore. I personally saw it on the lower North Shore two years ago on a tour. People have to wait for high tide to dock.

Fishers find themselves in difficulty when they have to brave a storm, travel 30, 40 or 50 nautical miles before arriving at a port which is totally inaccessible because it has not been dredged or repaired. We are also aware how little has been invested in the Canadian Coast Guard for the protection of our ships. Over the years, we have come to realize that there was a big problem.

I have here a study done worldwide. It mentions many countries and what is done elsewhere. It mentions Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Philippines. It refers to all these countries. If we look at what is going on in Canada we realize it is practically the only developed country in the world that does not look after its infrastructure. Small craft harbours in Iceland and Norway are in respectable repair. When repairs are required, they are done. It is a matter of safety.

I will add that the government had undertaken to divest itself of a number of harbours that were not particularly useful. For a community, a harbour is useful for more than just fishing. In most communities, these harbours have many uses. But they are not being maintained.

Here is a specific example. Those tempted to fish for cod with a line—and a licence—from a dock in Mont-Louis should think again. They would be risking their lives.

It is as simple as that. The harbour is in very bad condition. So a fence is put up and people are prevented from using the harbours in question because the government did not maintain them. We are not asking for a fortune. We just want to keep the $20 million budget, plus an additional $15 million a year for five years, to be able at least to repair the harbours and then invest appropriately in maintaining them. We are talking about approximately $70 million for the entire infrastructure all across the country, simply to maintain it. So this is extremely important, a major concern for our communities.

I also recall that the committee report adopted in 2001, which the previous government half carried out, was passed unanimously. The current government of Conservatives voted as unanimously as the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to implement the recommendations of this report.

Today we see with this government a repeat of what happened under the Liberals. They tell us they are in favour of maintaining and repairing small craft harbours. However, they resort to various tactics to prevent us from speaking in the House, while saying they are in favour. There was absolutely nothing in this budget, nothing presented to us recently, to improve and maintain small craft harbours. Worse than less than nothing, they announced a cut of about $11 million a year in the budget, in addition to the elimination of the $20 million, which means that $31 million were cut. This means that the harbours will continue to deteriorate.

I would like to give you an example. When the roof of a house leaks, if it is left leaking for 10 years, maintaining the house or simply repairing it costs a fortune. It is the same with small craft harbours. The roof leaks now; worse, there are huge holes in it. They do not repair it. So in the end, it will cost a fortune. What will it be in 10 years? It will be a billion dollars. Then the government will tell us that it cannot repair or maintain all the harbours because it does not have sufficient funds, with the result that some more will be abandoned and the lives of the users of small craft harbours will be endangered.

That is the real issue, and here is this government trying to gag us and prevent us from speaking, we who are defending our regions and the citizens who use small craft harbours.

I mentioned that I was dividing my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, because this is extremely important in his region. The infrastructure in that region, which has already been badly hit by the ground fish crisis and deeply affected by economic hardship, is in pathetic shape, as can be observed by travelling around the region from harbour to harbour. We can see firsthand how little the federal government has been concerned about our regions and its own infrastructure over the years. It got involved in duplicating Quebec's programs, instead of taking care of its own infrastructure.

I talked about 1,203 harbours all across Canada, but of these, slightly more than 700 are managed by corporations. The other thing is that volunteer corporations were created to manage these harbours, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot even support them. It simply cannot come up with a little funding to help them operate, so that they might really develop the harbours concerned.

At present, we realize that the corporations, which are, of course, volunteer organizations and are not being supported, are running out of steam. We realize that these people are wondering what the point is in the end, since the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot give them any support whatsoever to do their job. Worse, these people have to cope with the fishermen, the users, who are asking for repairs.

So these management corporations are used, one might say, as buffers between the federal government and the users. They have to manage the infrastructure in question, which is often in very poor condition, and receive all requests. They are the ones taking the criticism, when it should be the government being criticized.

Since I am being told I have one minute left, I would like to talk about another file, in closing, which is strangely similar to the one on small craft harbours. This is the at-sea observer program. I will speak about it later, because this is an extremely important file, on which the Conservative government, once again, has not really made up its mind. For some $2 million, the resource will be at risk across the country, from sea to sea, because the government does not want to invest this small amount of money in the autonomy and independence of the at-sea observers.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his passionate comments on small craft harbours. Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans know that both members from the Bloc represent their communities very well on this issue and other issues as well. However, they are well versed on this. I appreciate the comments.

Working backward, on the at sea observer program, the member will know that we discussed that in a recent meeting, and the government is responsive to that input. That decision taken by the previous Liberal government is now being reviewed by our government because of the many things that were brought up.

I would like to reassure the member, though, that there was no attempt on this side of the House to gag the members. In fact, we said we agreed with the motion. Having said that, we felt we should resume on what we had planned to debate today.

What does the member think of the divestiture program? Does he think we should continue at a faster pace or is that perhaps part of the problem?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with continuing the divestiture program, but we have to support the corporations.

I would also like to remind the parliamentary secretary that the divestiture program provides for the paltry sum of $1.5 million for the entire country. What does the government hope to accomplish with that? We are talking about divestitures of ports that need repair. It costs as much to repair a port as to build it in the first place. I can give the example of Mont-Louis in my riding. It is costing $12 million or $13 million to repair the port before it can be transferred. So what does the government hope to do with $1.5 million a year?

There is a problem at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is completely underfunded, a tradition in the federal government. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is catastrophically underfunded. We do not get the impression that successive governments have considered fishing and the regions important.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to be in Woods Harbour. I was out on the lobster dock. The wharf was filled with lobster boats ready to head out when the season opens next fall. They have been working hard these last months. They are in such a crammed situation there. They have an application in to get some additional funding and we want to see that funding supported.

As the hon. member said, a divestiture program without support for these local community corporations, which are trying to run these operations in a fashion that really strengthens our economy, will not work out the way it has to. We have to call upon the government to provide the financial support that is necessary.

When it comes to fishing and bringing in lobster revenue, this is a vitally important part of the economy of this whole region, of the Atlantic region and right across the country. The people who bring in the fish, who bring in the lobster, are making an important contribution. When we talk to them about what they are doing day in and day out, all they are asking for is a recognition of those basic needs. We call upon the government to honour those needs.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would like to tell him that in other developed countries, even when the government has divested itself of ports, it keeps on investing in them.

I will give a concrete example. Take the community of Mont-Louis, which has a population of 1,500. The port could be transferred to the community, but in 10 or 15 years, if the port needs $3 million or $4 million in repairs, do you think that 1,500 people will be able to pay for them? That is the problem with the port divestiture program.

The federal government must continue supporting communities and investing in ports, as governments of other countries do, even if the ports are managed by corporations or have been transferred.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia offers a very good presentation of the issues involved here.

I would like to return to those issues. Because of them, we are today faced with situations of real injustice and catastrophe with respect to small craft harbours. In fact, sometimes one wonders if the wharf is attached to the vessel or the vessel attached to the wharf. It has reached the point where people are really wondering what is going on. Unfortunately, the horror stories in my constituency of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine are legion.

This is a catastrophe and at the same time a scandal because, let us not forget, this injustice is continuing with the Conservative government. But it began with the Liberal government. It is the same injustice and the same fight, whether with the Conservative government or the Liberal government, namely the fight for recognition of a need that is considered essential for the coastal and fishing communities.

I know that a particular effort was made by the Liberal government, with $20 million per year over five years. But members will understand that, given the figures, the amount in question is very far from meeting the needs. Even with the $20 million a year for five years, we were still in a situation that required $400 million, and today we need $500 million, according to the department’s estimates. And the true estimates and the real situation probably involve amounts far greater than that.

True the budget has been increased, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois. I recall quite clearly that, during my first election campaign, in 2000, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc, came to the Magdalen Islands. At that time this was made a national issue. However, at that time we also had to fight to get the budget increased. After the 2000 election, it was.

Still, we are a long way from meeting the real needs. Basically there are two issues. There is the issue of those who use the small craft harbours. These harbours are not used just for pleasure, and there is not necessarily a wharf in each location or each municipality. We know there was a time, some years ago, say 40 or 50 years, when certain hon. members were promising wharves virtually anywhere and everywhere. I am not that sort of member. A wharf was promised for every bay. So it was necessary to do some housecleaning on this issue.

It is true that the divestiture program was interesting enough when it was started up, but it took on frighteningly dangerous proportions. Communities did not ask for a wharf just for the fun of having one. Coastal communities used to have a lot more fishers then. In my riding, in particular, there is a municipality called Port-Daniel, where I am from. There was a time when five or six wharves were used, if I am not mistaken. And there was not just one boat at each wharf. Many boats were moored at each of those wharves. At one time, there were hundreds of fishers who needed those facilities.

I realize that the situation has changed, but I also realize that the community of Port-Daniel still has needs, as do people elsewhere. People are dealing with acts of God these days. As we know, climate change also has an impact on small craft harbours. This can lead to unusual situations, like with the Percé wharf. We have all heard of the well-known hole in that area, the hole in Rocher-Percé. Two or three years ago, the Percé wharf had its own hole to deal with.

This is a very serious problem. Because of climate change, storms are causing a lot more damage than they used to.

Infrastructure damage creates very difficult situations. In the budget for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not a penny is allocated for situations caused by acts of God.

The second thing I would like to highlight about small craft harbours is safety. Serious thought was given to the where the how and the why when building these harbours. They also contribute to safety, even though they are not often used in that capacity. For example, in the Magdalen Islands, the Pointe-aux-Loups wharf is essential because the distance between wharves is not just a few hundred metres, but several kilometres. You know as well as I do that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is very beautiful, but it can also be dangerous when the wind whips the sea into a frenzy. This is why some wharves are useful not only for berthing, but for safety.

If we do not maintain these wharves, terrible things will happen. We have already seen wharves in awful shape—safety-wise, we might well be answerable for endangering lives. This is why the small craft harbour issue is very important in the community.

In closing, I want to say a few words about the port authorities. In Quebec, as elsewhere, volunteers take care of the small craft harbours. Let me tell you that these people are quite discouraged and tired of waiting. They have been so fed up that even they have prepared a report warning that the situation has reached a point of no return and things absolutely need to change or we will end up with situations that are beyond catastrophic.

What could be more catastrophic in the history of small craft harbours? I hope the current federal government will not have the same response as the previous government. In the case of small craft harbours, when there were catastrophic situations, or situations requiring major repairs, the only response we got was the installation of a security fence around the wharf in question. That was the response to a community that needed this wharf for the fishers. The security aspect consisted in installing a security fence.

Let me tell you that the people in Grand-Vallée did not think it was funny. They finally realized that their wharf could possibly be used for other purposes. That should not be forgotten. To deal with the current and future situation, a multi-purpose solution may have to be considered.

Versatility might be the answer. Just look at Anse-à-Beaufils in my riding. People use the wharf because they have boats that serve the tourists and that tour Bonaventure Island and Rocher Percé. This is a maritime facility that could be used for economic interests or tourism purposes. There are also lobster fishers in this sector and tourists who dock at the wharf in the summer.

If we had the facilities, quality infrastructure, repaired as it should be, this maritime crossroads could be used in many ways. This could allow communities like ours to say they have been listened to and that they are respected.

That is also what this is about: respecting these people who live in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Magdalen Islands or elsewhere. These people deserve respect and this respect comes in the form of firm, significant financial commitments to meet their needs.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my two Bloc Québécois colleagues. I believe that they accurately underscored the crucial importance of investing public funds in fishing harbours throughout Canada.

I understand the situation in Quebec because it is more or less identical to that in southeastern New Brunswick, where I am from. In my riding, the port authorities are experiencing essentially the same problems as those described by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. There is almost never enough money to carry out the work, which is important not only for the safety of those who use the wharves, but also to ensure the economic future of these small coastal communities.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. He underscored the main reasons why the government should significantly increase the budget allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans specifically for fishing harbours. In my riding, we noted a long delay before the fishermen's committees were informed of the funds available this year. This might have been due to the election, or perhaps it is because this government is not terribly interested in helping these fishermen. In any case, I heard many fishermen expressing frustration about the lack of awareness or commitment, which prevents them from knowing what projects will be approved. I was wondering if the situation is the same in my colleague's riding.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question.

The situation today is the same as it was a few years ago. As far as I know, a few years ago we were under a Liberal minority government. Unfortunately, that continues.

I understand that some effort has been made and I mentioned that. I also understand today that we have a Conservative minority government. However, the situation is such that the communities with a pressing need for quality infrastructure—repaired, as it must be—need simply to receive a respectful message from the government. As I mentioned earlier, the communities need to feel this respect, as do the harbour administrators when it comes time to plan. In this area, it is important to know ahead of time how much funding can be counted on.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, in committee the other day people from DFO told us that these harbour authorities had the ability to raise the fees they charge to the users of these wharves. Of course that is just another form of downloading.

We had indicated to the officials at that time that any more fees toward fishermen would have another devastating effect.

I wonder if the member would concur with the statement that when these HAs, as they are called, tack on more fees to the users of these wharves it compounds the problem to an even greater extent.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with what I have just heard. I do not think the answer to the current problem is to ask for more money from those who use the facilities and who need them. If the answer to the problem of unemployment were to pay less in EI benefits, would that be a good response? I do not think so. The same can be said for the small craft harbours. Fishers need these facilities. We are not talking about this need to use and repair the ports purely for our own pleasure.

The effort must be made by the government, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because it is its responsibility.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his very clear explanation of the problem.

I would like to say that we are also talking about a loss of community culture and a loss of revenue. This revenue, which comes from fishing, tourism and even light cabotage, must not be considered as a straight loss, but as a loss for the government.

Repairing these harbours is not an act of charity. When we invest in an industry, when we help a business get back on its feet, when things go well, the federal government also gets something out of it in taxes.

I would like the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to explain how the government is not throwing away money by investing in these harbours.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. In addition, because of his comment, I can add this: small craft harbours are part of our heritage.

I feel that in ridings such as ours, the history of the harbour is the history of the community. Injecting money into that heritage is also a way of showing respect for what we have been through and where we come from, as well as for the people who built and used those wharves.

It could be very useful for a riding such as mine, because these harbours are part of the heritage and the culture. In fact, it could boost the economy by aiding the tourism industry.

For the people in the community—in Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands—the wharf is a gathering place, just as it is for the tourists who come to the area.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to visit the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands this summer or in the coming weeks.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

I want to thank the hon. member for Cardigan, who is on the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans, for bringing forward this motion today. I also want to remind the member for Cardigan and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's in a very respectful way, because I highly respect them both, that on their previous discussion about who introduced what first when it came to the capital gains exemption for fishermen, that it was the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans that unanimously made the recommendation for fishermen and their families.

I am proud to see that some of those people who were actually part of that committee at that time and offered their unanimous support for the recommendation are here today. Unfortunately, the previous government failed to move on it. I am proud to see that the current government is moving on it in a way that is acceptable to most of the fishermen.

Regarding the situation with the wharves, I would remind everyone that wharves and harbours are just as essential to fishermen on the coast as grain elevators and railroad tracks are to farmers in the Prairies. As we know, when the government cancelled the crow rate, started knocking down grain elevators, and let the roads deteriorate, farm families left the farms and they were corporatized. Now the bigger corporations are taking over.

What is happening on the east and west coasts and in some parts of central Canada is that the wharves are deteriorating, the fish stocks are being corporatized, and fishermen are leaving their livelihoods. In fact, there used to be 17 wharves in my riding at one time. Now I am down to 2 because of redistribution.

When we look at the movement of people out of rural Canada into the major areas, a lot of them are from the farming, forestry, mining and fishing communities. These harbours are very essential to the livelihood of many rural Canadians on all three coasts.

I want to state that Nunavut now is working with the government, DFO and other departments, like transport, in order to achieve some wharf ability in Nunavut to exploit its fisheries, so that it can land product there and not have to do it offshore. That is going to be quite an expense. I would encourage the government of the day along with the department handling it to work with the government of Nunavut and the environment, and everything else in order to ascertain the best place for these new wharves, so that the people in Nunavut can have economic activity from their natural resources.

The wharves, especially in my area of Atlantic Canada, are essential to these people. I really did not like the idea of the divestiture program because in many ways it downloaded into these mostly volunteer groups who, in turn, had to charge fees to the fishermen. Of course, they never had the money to upgrade and fix these harbours and facilities once and for all.

Another thing missing from this debate is dredging. Many of these harbours require dredging and that is a very expensive proposition. My hon. colleague from the Bloc is absolutely correct. We are standing here talking about $20 million that we do not want to see cut and the member for Cardigan asked for an additional $15 million, but in all honesty when we look at wharves right across this country, including central Canada, we are looking at probably upward of $400 million to $600 million. That is not even including what is possible for Nunavut.

We need a major investment into these wharves and harbours, so that fishermen and their communities can earn their livelihoods, just like we do in central Canada when we drive down the road. We need a nice, paved road that is safe and secure so we can get to our jobs. Fishermen and their communities need the wharves and docks to be in proper shape so that they, in turn, can do their jobs.

Fishing is probably one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. As my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's knows, the papers the other day reported another couple of fishermen being rescued. It is an amazing thing that these men and women who ply our seas in order to harvest the food that we in turn are able to appreciate risk their lives every day when they leave the wharves. It would be a nice thing for them to know that they have the support of all parliamentarians and that we take their issues seriously.

I have been on the committee since 1997 and I must say that it is one of the best committees of the House. It has worked with various chair people. The current chairperson from South Shore—St. Margaret's is doing a fine job so far in his early tenure as the chair of our committee, the vice-chairs are as well, and the PS from British Columbia is not a bad fellow indeed.

We must encourage these men. I want to say this because we want to encourage them when they go to cabinet and ask for the money that is required. I want them to know that they have the support of the NDP, and I am sure the Bloc and the Liberals, in order to do that. However, they are going to have to have that political sword to get that funding that our wharves and harbours need right across this country.

We want to let them know that if they are to pursue that angle, they will have our support. If, unfortunately, they are not able to do that, then of course we would have to use whatever political pressure we can in order to ensure that we get it into the government's head that those harbours and wharves are just as important as rail beds, airports and roadways are to the general populace in the rest of the Canada. It is extremely vital that we do this.

This is why I am quite proud to see that the motion was brought forward today. I am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary of fisheries and oceans has said the Conservatives support the motion. But that is only $20 million. That is not nearly enough.

We do not want to see any more cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this regard. We want to see greater enhancements to the department. We want greater accountability for the department. We want the Auditor General to go through that department with a fine-toothed comb, to be completely honest. We need to have more investment when it comes to small crafts harbours in this country because they are so vital to the economy of those areas.

If we are going to build on the extremities of Canada, the west coast, parts of central Canada, the east, and improve the situation in the north, the government and the Prime Minister must take a firm stand and say they will not abandon them. They must not cut this department. They must enhance the resources that are required so that the communities we hail from, Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, will know that they can enjoy their livelihoods, and a very risky one at that.

They in turn will know that their government and all opposition members, for example, support what they do and are proud of what they do. It will enable them to do their job as best as they can, so that they will have quality wharves. It will ensure that there are no additional fees tacked onto them, the dredging is done properly, and that there is proper monitoring on those wharves to ensure that when they start to deteriorate, as the member for Cardigan said, we will reinvest these wharves all the time to keep them going. If we did that then maybe, just maybe, we would not have such a depopulation of rural Canada as we see today.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the standing committee for his interest in this matter. He is always well-prepared and brings a lot of useful information and perspective to the committee, and we thank him for that.

I recall, in 2005, when DFO officials said that the small craft harbours program was one of the priorities of the then minister and that he would be working at providing stabilized funding for it. That did not happen and the challenge is still before us. I am pretty sure this member would agree that it takes a lot of money. There have been some big numbers thrown around here that might be available.

Certainly, I know the minister is going to work very hard at trying to find that source of funding. However, let us assume just for the sake of argument that there is a limited pool, and maybe even a limited pool just for fisheries and oceans. I wonder if the member has any suggestions about what areas are over-funded so that we might be able to move the money from those areas into small craft harbours. Or is he really just committed to finding new funding somewhere else?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct that the Conservatives inherited quite a mess from the previous government when it comes to this particular aspect of DFO.

There are many ways in which we can divert funds in order to put them into that program. My personal beef is the gun registry, for one. We could save some money there. That money has been spent a hundred times over for other departments.

The reality is that the government just claimed a $12 billion surplus. It is not that difficult for it to work with the communities across this country to prioritize the wharves that are in desperate shape now and that need assistance now because, as my colleague from the Bloc said, some of them are past the point of no return. The government can prioritize, work with the communities, and get the funding to them as quickly as possible.

It would be nice to see the government take the same approach to fishermen as it recently did with Bill C-15 which was just passed unanimously in this House. The agricultural critics worked with the Minister of Agriculture to get that funding right away. If the government could take that same approach with fishermen, in terms of their harbours and wharves, that would be a great day in this House.