Debates of June 5th, 2006

Committees of the House

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite has been a long term member of the fisheries committee and indeed a good member. I know that he is very concerned about the fishery. The member mentioned in his remarks the tremendous surplus that the current government was left with. Would the member agree with me that the spending requirements and needs of small craft harbours are in fact greater than they have ever been?

On the shores of Prince Edward Island there have been worse storms in recent years. We are getting more damage on the wharves. We are having to put in more armourstone to protect the wharves. Would the member answer in terms of the needs for fishermen in his area how the wharves compare with years ago? Does the member believe that the Government of Canada should be spending more money on small craft harbours instead of cutting back, spending less and basically saving the money for their friends in wealthy places?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one area that the money could come from. We always hear about how the government wants to give back some gas tax money to municipalities for roads, water and infrastructure. These fishermen also pay gas taxes on their fuel, so some of that money could be allocated to small craft harbours in order to upgrade the wharves.

The reality is that the situation is worse than it has ever been. I know that the member for Malpeque certainly would not want to stand up in the House and say that it was all the current government's fault, because the government has inherited the problem through years of neglect.

We cannot rewrite history and turn the clock back, so we have to work together to encourage the government to find the resources applicable. There are ways, through gas tax allocation and municipal allocations or from somewhere, to ensure that some of the money that gets transferred to municipalities and provinces--and to increase the budget of DFO through small craft harbours--can assist those fishermen.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to this debate.

My riding is Acadie—Bathurst. As you may know, Chaleur Bay is lined with fishermen's wharves. The entire community from Pointe-Verte to Miscou Island and from my riding to Val-Comeau is a fishing community.

It is unfortunate that it has come to this. The former government deserves no accolades for accumulating surplus after surplus in its budgets. Our wharves are in an incredible state of deterioration.

I remember the big storm in 2000, I think it was, that caused $550,000 in damages to the Petit-Rocher wharf. Waves crested at over 30 feet. The wharf moved about a foot and had to be repaired. The repairs were very expensive. During the election campaign in 2000, the former government played politics with this issue and told the locals that their wharf would not be repaired unless they elected a Liberal government. It is sad to see governments acting this way.

Today, the parliamentary secretary—who I respect—proposes that we take money from one area and invest it somewhere else. It could be taken out of the $10 billion tax break given to corporations with presidents who pay themselves $10 million. Perhaps it would be better to invest this money in the infrastructure of our country. This infrastructure is everywhere—on the Atlantic coast, in Quebec, in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine and in Gaspé, or in our home area.

As I was saying earlier, the Pointe-Verte facilities have needed repairs for several years. In Petit Rocher, it was years before the wharves were repaired. In Grand-Anse, fishermen put out to sea at 5 a.m., return from fishing and anchor in the Baie des Chaleurs. They have to wait for the tide to come in to approach the wharf. This is quite simply unacceptable. Last week, or the week before that, the boat of two fishermen was damaged when they attempted to reach the Grand-Anse wharf. The Miller Brook wharf has also been deteriorating for years, to the point that people should not walk on it. As for the Lamèque wharf, a portion has had to be closed because of its state of disrepair.

That is the situation today. The member from Prince Edward Island stands to say that this government has done nothing. I hope he will do something. To date, we are not very impressed. The budget does not allocate any funds for repairing the wharves. It was the same with the previous government. We are not just concerned about the fishery. The safety of the men and women who go out to sea to fish is also at issue.

Today, for our communities in the Acadian Peninsula, in the area of Petit Rocher and Pointe-Verte, and along the Baie des Chaleurs, the fishery is the main industry. There is also tourism in our area. We must consider tourism and everything required for our wharves.

Hopefully, the government will accept the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. However, I find the committee's recommendation of $15 million negligible compared to the damage that has been caused across the country. Consider all of the wharves in Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, on the North Shore and the Acadian peninsula. A fisherman who works on a lobster fishing boat does not want to find himself 60 or 80 km from home. This is nonsense. We need those wharves. They must be repaired.

The previous government dumped this onto the communities, the harbour authorities, telling them to deal with their own problems. As of today, June 5, the government has not yet given the green light to invest in these communities. Everyone is calling the MP to know when the money will be available and, above all, whether the money really will be given to the communities. It is time to distribute the money, and repairing the wharves must be given priority.

Yesterday, for example, the leader of the NDP was in Nova Scotia and met with a fisherman named Sterling Belliveau who has 30 years of experience as a lobster fisherman. These fishermen have been waiting a long time to get their wharf repaired. It is the same thing all over Nova Scotia. It is totally unacceptable that there is no investment in something that our fishermen are waiting for, that they need. We have to look at this in the same way as we look at grain elevators that are needed out west. For the fishery, we need this in the east, we need it in British Columbia and we need it in Vancouver. We need this all across the country where we have fishermen. Just to switch this to the communauté, where we are right now in the fishery, with people in the fishery having a hard time making a living, it is totally unacceptable.

Furthermore, the fishing industry is very difficult these days. Today's lobster fishermen are not rich. As for herring fishermen, who can only fish for four weeks, they are not rich either, due to the price of gas and other associated costs. The last thing they need is to arrive at the wharf and damage their boat because they cannot dock. The dredging that should have taken place was not done. It was all left in a shambles. Everything was neglected. We now find ourselves with whatever is left.

The Bloc Québécois member was right. I agree with his example. It is like a house. If the roof is not repaired, everything will be lost. This is the same for wharves. If they are not repaired when they are damaged, they will be lost.

Here is an example for those who might not be aware. It used to be that communities did not have problems with storms. There are storms now because of climatic changes. I mentioned earlier a storm that broke up the wharf in Petit-Rocher, resulting in expenditures of $550,000. You should see it. Why did that happen? Because there should have been a stone wall out in front of the wharf to protect it.

Every year, we ask the government to invest money to protect our wharves. The government responds that there is no urgency. It waits until the wharf is damaged before fixing it up, because the repairs are then justified. If it took a preventive approach, it would cost a lot less to keep our wharves in good condition. Storms would not break them up. As well, those in poor condition have to be repaired.

People in Miller Brook, Stonehaven, Pointe-Verte, Grande-Anse, Caraquet, l'Anse-Bleue, Lamèque and Shippagan are waiting for the government to come and help them to maintain their infrastructures. This industry is important to the Atlantic region, as well as to the Pacific region. It is all very well for the government to say it is aware, but it has to appear in the budget. In the latest budget, the government allocated no additional amount to resolve the problem of the wharves. It wonders where it will get the money. It already has it. There are billions of dollars in surpluses. It should take this money and spend it where there is a demand and a need.

The fishermen and fishing communities in the regions I named need it just as much as do those in the Gaspé, the North Shore, the Magdalen Islands, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

The government has a responsibility. I call on it to put the money where it should and to invest in small wharves in order to help our communities and those all across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his remarks. He is well aware of the problem, because he too lives in a maritime region.

The government is telling us that it supports reinvestment in infrastructure and infrastructure repair. The problem is that it is offering nothing concrete. There was nothing concrete in the budget that was tabled. The government is even preparing to cut $20 million a year from the existing program. That is what the government is doing.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. He mentioned the corporations that manage the harbours, which belong to the government. If memory serves, there are 689 harbours, 569 of which are managed by corporations. We did a study, and these corporations told us that they received no government support. The corporations are run by 5,000 volunteers, with no support. These people are so burnt out that the corporations are falling apart and it is virtually impossible to replace people who leave.

I would like to know whether my colleague is seeing the same thing in his riding.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

The situation is worse than that. When the wharves were turned over to the harbour authorities, the authorities did not want them. But they were forced to take them, otherwise the wharves would be closed. The reason was that the government wanted to get rid of its responsibility.

The regions want the government to get involved in managing the wharves. The government can tax for investment purposes. The harbour authorities are made up of volunteers, and they are frustrated, fed up and worn out. Despite all their work, they see no light at the end of the tunnel. What is more, everyone is on their case because the wharves are in disrepair.

So yes, what the hon. member said is true, and people want change.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was speaking very passionately on this subject, which is a good thing.

It may be in his last answer, but I am not sure I heard the hon. member say specifically what he thinks about harbour authorities.

The idea behind harbour authorities was that if we make the transition from a government operated wharf to an independently operated harbour authority, those harbour authorities now have access to other funds, even government funds, even federal government funds, perhaps from an employment program or a regional initiative and funds perhaps from other levels of government, maybe even some other more creative revenue sources or revenue generating programs and so on. That was the rationale behind them. I wonder what the hon. member thinks of this concept.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the rationale and what happens are two different things. Maybe the rationale was okay but we have to look at what is happening.

The fishermen coming in from sea cannot even get to the wharf. What has been done is the government transferred it to them, said here is the rationale, and then washed its hands and walked away from them. That was the previous government. Now the new government wants to cut the program by $20 million, when in committee the Conservatives on the committee said yes, we need an extra $15 million and at the same time the same government wants to cut it by $20 million.

The rationale was okay but the actuality of what is happening is wrong. We could see it right there on the water. The fishermen stay on the water and they are worried about a storm. As one colleague said, a storm on the Baie des Chaleurs could happen in the snap of a finger.

One day one fisherman was in the middle of the Baie des Chaleurs and by the time he could get to the Gaspé coast, because he was closer to that shore, he lost all the windows in the front of his boat. The waves broke all the windows and he was almost killed.

That wharf is needed. The fishermen need to be able to get in fast. For the safety of the fishermen and for them to be able to make a living, we need government involvement, not government shying away from it. Right now what the government is doing is walking away from it. This is totally wrong. That is my answer to my colleague's good question.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is an honour to rise in a debate on the fishery at any time in the House. I am more than pleased to rise on debate today.

I have listened closely to the comments from my hon. colleagues. It has been quite a wide-ranging debate. I would like to bring it back to the motion, which is:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion agreed to by the Committee on May 16, 2006, the Committee has studied small crafts harbours and recommends that the government consider the advisability of raising the current budget of $86.6 M contained in the 2006-2007 budget by $15 M for the fiscal year 2007-2008.

All of the subjects aside, all of the issues that are confronting the fishery, all of them are important, but it is also important to speak to the motion as it has been spoken to by some of the other members. Some members have got slightly off-track of the original motion.

First and most important, we are supporting the motion. There is not a disagreement or debate in the House, really. We are supporting the motion. We support the motion as it is presented to the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries has said that and several other members have said that. We will be supporting the motion.

I do not think I am overstating the matter when I say that all members of the House recognize the importance of the small craft harbours program, certainly those familiar with the ocean and with the fishery and those of us who represent coastal ridings. The small craft harbours program is an essential service for the commercial fishing communities in Canada. As well, it helps sustain the many coastal and inland communities served by the program.

As a member of this House and a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I am a strong advocate for the program. More important, I recognize the significant contribution small craft harbours make to the 1,200 communities they serve in almost all the provinces and territories in Canada.

While the program is primarily intended to support the local fishing communities, these harbours perform a much broader function. They often provide a vital transportation link to adjacent communities or major hub communities. In some cases they are the only link. They are frequently the centre for community social activities or services centred for other economic pursuits, such as tourism, transport and other marine based industries. These services are very often critical to the welfare of our coastal communities. They can also serve to attract other businesses to the area. In short, small craft harbours are of great value to the many and varied clients they serve. The government is among the first to recognize their importance.

Having said that, I know that the current conditions of some core fishing harbours are not as good as we would like to see them. Reports indicate that about 21% of the facilities at these harbours are in poor condition. The overall network of small craft harbours is aging and increasingly in need of maintenance and repairs.

The program, with more than 1,200 harbours, maintains assets with a replacement cost of over $2 billion for the core fishing harbours alone. These assets require constant maintenance and repairs. They are aging or are subject to normal wear and tear, let alone storm related damage as was mentioned several times by several of the speakers.

Because of the limited budget, the small craft harbours program has had to very carefully assess on a constant basis its most pressing and critical core harbour repair needs. The priority has been safety and making sure that the basic harbour operations are maintained, or impacted as little as possible.

The program has managed so far to risk mitigation measures to avoid having to close any core harbours, but the level of services has diminished. I say that very clearly. Many of the members who spoke to this motion were members of the former government. Quite frankly, we have been in government for less than four months, just barely four months. It is quite a responsibility to suddenly have all of the problems of the last 13 years.

The fact is there had been a government in place that ignored small craft harbours. It ignored rural and coastal Canada and did very little to mitigate the damages and the wear and tear the harbours were subjected to. All of a sudden, members of the former government are standing and saying that there is a crisis. Where were they when the crisis was upon them?

We now have a government that is prepared to approve this motion, to work with fishermen, to work with coastal communities in a responsible and measured way. Apparently that is not enough. I would ask, what is enough?

Since the late 1980s the management and operation of core fishing harbours has been assumed by local harbour authorities. Harbour authorities are not for profit corporations. They represent harbour users and other local stakeholders. With about 5,000 volunteers these organizations have enabled the program to devote more scarce resources to the maintenance of assets while improving service to the harbour clients. Mainly, harbour clients are fishermen.

These harbour authorities have taken on great responsibility. Quite frankly many are now beginning to suffer fatigue and burn out largely because of the deteriorating conditions of their harbours. They need our support to continue. Improving harbour conditions will go a long way to relieve them of some of the burden. It is a very heavy burden that these harbour authorities carry. They do not have the funding. It was never put in place under the previous government. They do not have the access to resources.

There is a responsibility for government but government has to take a major and responsible approach to that responsibility. We just cannot suddenly declare tomorrow that we are going to satisfy all the ills of 13 years of neglect of the harbours.

These are not the only pressures facing the small craft harbours program. Indeed there are many others. As our fisheries and fishing industry in Canada continue to evolve, so too do the needs of the program's clients. The numbers and sizes especially of the vessels are changing. Fishing activity and patterns are shifting geographically and in other ways. More first nations communities are participating in commercial fishing. Aquaculture activity continues to expand and locate in new areas. Add to this the use of small craft harbours by non-fishing vessels. It is easy to see why many of our harbours are congested. This in turn leads to a reduction in the quality of services that users expect and contributes to deteriorating conditions at over-subscribed facilities.

Fifteen years ago the beams of the vessels were much narrower than they are today. Three vessels could actually be tied side by side. We could tie them abreast of one another at the wharf. Today two vessels can be tied side by side at the wharf because the beams have increased in size by that much. They are that much wider. The boats themselves have changed and the demands have changed with them. This in turn leads to a reduction in the quality of services that users expect and it contributes to deteriorating conditions again at over-subscribed facilities.

The program will have to invest in new capacity to address the new demands and reduce this congestion. As well, existing locally operated commercial fishing harbours outside of the program are seeking federal assistance to repair their deteriorating facilities.

In addition, Nunavut Territory, where no federal small craft harbours presently exist, has requested financial assistance to establish a number of community harbours to support the growing fishing industry. This translates into a demand for resources the program simply does not have at this time.

It was in the mid-1990s that the government began to focus its efforts exclusively on core commercial fishing harbours. This resulted in the divestiture of some 1,300 non-essential harbours. About 347 remain to be divested. Their early divestiture would provide financial relief to the program's ongoing budget. However, again because of limited resources available to maintain the core commercial fishing harbours, little funding has been set aside for these divestitures.

As a consequence, the previous pace of divestitures which was financed by now expired special funding has slowed considerably. This means that many harbours which should be in the hands of the community remain in poor condition with only the very basic repairs afforded by the program.

This delay has frustrated some communities waiting to assume these harbours and to see repairs made. What they want is simply a functional, safe and accessible harbour and wharfage.

Moreover, as the pace of divestiture slows, conditions at these harbours continue to deteriorate resulting in additional downstream costs to the program. The costs are escalating, the conditions of the wharves are deteriorating and government is in a very precarious position with only so much money at its request.

Our government will do its very best to explore all the options to deal with these pressures. However, DFO faces a number of other pressures and priorities, in addition to the small craft harbours program. We are truly committed to examining all possibilities. We are willing to work with other departments, various levels of government and the community at large to ensure we can continue to serve the many hundreds of fishing communities that depend upon the services of DFO.

This government supports the small craft harbours program, the vital core services it provides and the Canadians it serves. I would hope that we can all count on the support and the constructive input of this House because we need constructive input to save the small craft harbours program and our commercial fishery, quite frankly, because a lot of pressures are facing the commercial fisheries. The wharfage issue is only one of them.

In that way, our coastal and inland fishing communities can receive the infrastructure support they need to ensure their livelihoods and the quality of life that they rightly deserve.

The government is supportive of the motion and would like to see additional permanent increases provided to the small craft harbours budget to meet all its key program requirements and respond to the most essential of the clients' needs.

I do think this is a fairly complicated issue, one that really does not benefit from the use of partisan positions and rhetoric and one in which our government has taken a leadership role in a very short period of time.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about rhetoric and we heard a fair bit of that when he was talking about the previous government.

The fact is that the previous Liberal government took over the financial mess that the previous government left of a $42 billion annual deficit and it turned the country around. The previous government turned over the best fiscal position to the present government than any government has received in Canadian history. The government has the funding to do the right thing for Fisheries and Oceans and small craft harbours and the member opposite knows it.

I hope the member opposite is not just playing with words. He said that they would be supporting the motion. The motion reads, “--consider the advisability of raising the current budget--”, and then it goes to the numbers.

Is the chair of the fisheries committee, the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's, telling us today that the government is committing itself to eliminating the cut that was proposed and implementing the increase? Or, is he saying that the government, the Conservative Party opposite, will just sit around and consider a number of things?

We need to know the facts and we need the facts on the table. Will the government eliminate the cut or implement the increase that is mentioned in the motion?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when I stand in this House. The Conservative Party has had the reins of power for slightly over 100 days and has made some very important decisions that affect the lives of Canadians. Every resource sector in all parts of Canada has shown its support time and time again for the fishery, for our troops, for lower income earners and for middle income earners. We brought in a budget that will make a difference to all Canadians.

Now, all of a sudden, members who were in government and at the government table for over 13 years, who failed to prevent these cuts, who allowed the deterioration and utter destruction of our wharfage system in Canada, who allowed the deterioration and destruction of our fishery in Canada, who did not rationalize licences and who never made the difficult and tough decisions they should have made, are insistent that we change the system after being in power for only 100 days.

We absolutely support the motion that the committee study small craft harbours and recommends that the government consider the advisability of raising the current budget of $86.6 million contained in the 2006-07 budget by $15 million for the fiscal year 2007-08.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for his comments.

However, I find these comments problematic. The member says that the other government abandoned the fishery over the course of the past 13 years, and that his government is now inheriting the entire mess. People are living with docks in disrepair. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans made a presentation entitled “Small Craft Harbours” to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The former government abandoned fishermen, even with surpluses every year. The Liberal member said that fortunately his party had erased the government's $46 billion deficit.

They did just that at the expense of the workers. There was a deficit of $46 billion but, to date, $49 billion has been taken from the unemployed. We know where the money came from. The new government was not elected to say that, since the other one did it, they will do the same thing.

Although the Conservatives have only a minority government, the presentation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans indicates that the current budget of $86.6 million will be reduced by $20 million next year.

The hon. member is practically accusing the Liberal government of not doing its job. The government is supposed to do better because that is what it said it wanted to do. The Conservatives told Canadians that they wanted to be elected because they would do better. In the meantime, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was told that the current budget of $86.6 million will be cut by $20 million next year. Nonetheless, the government has made an about face and is recommending $15 million. In my opinion, they are still $5 million short.

Furthermore, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, said he will support that. Nonetheless, these are my concerns: will his government support that? Will it restore the $20 million? To my calculation, 20 million plus 15 million is 35 million, which is still not enough.

I think I spoke directly to the motion, even though the hon. member is trying to have us believe we do not talk about it. I know the hon. member well. When he was in the opposition that is what he would say.

Now he is in the government and he is trying to blame the former government, which I too am prepared to blame because it took $49 billion from the EI fund to balance the budget and maintain zero deficits. However, this new government now wants to take $20 million from the pockets of fishers and communities.

This is my question for the hon. member: what will his new government do? It is time to stop saying they inherited this or that from the former government. That is in the past. We are now June 5, 2006, and the Conservative government is in power. What will it do for fishers? Will it restore the $20 million and add the $15 million as recommended by the committee?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has said in several different ways now that we support the motion. It is our intention to support the motion and we will support the motion.

I have a question for the member for Acadie—Bathurst. His fearless leader was on his feet a while ago talking about being on the wharf in Woods Harbour. I have been on the wharf in Woods Harbour several times. Woods Harbour is a major lobster fishing port in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's. Apparently at that time the NDP made a commitment to the fishery. The NDP said that it would support the fishery. I certainly applaud the NDP for that if they ever do support the fishery.

However, I have a message for the fishermen who were on the wharf in Woods Harbour that day. I would tell them to be very careful when the NDP say that it will support the fishermen. I heard the NDP members say in the House that they would support our troops in Afghanistan and they then voted to withdraw the troops and not support them at a critical time in that mission. If that is the same support that the NDP will offer to the fishery, I say that is not sufficient.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged. I want to let the House know at this point that, although we are known for a lot of things in Chatham-Kent—Essex, very few people know that we have the largest freshwater fishery in the world. I say that without exception.

We too have some problems with our harbour. The good people of Wheatley, where our harbour is found, have a problem with dredging. I am encouraged by what I heard, but could the member tell me if I will be able to go back to the people of my riding and tell them that this spring they will be able to do dredging with a commitment from the government?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, who certainly is a great advocate for his harbour and for the largest freshwater fishery in the country, that this government supports small craft harbours and it will continue to that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question from the member for Chatham-Kent--Essex, but it is too bad the government will not commit to doing the job.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Cape Breton--Canso.

I am pleased to speak in support of the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am pleased that my colleague from Cardigan has pushed this issue so strenuously. We are calling on the government to stand by fishermen and put the necessary funding for small craft harbours under DFO.

I was pleased when I heard the chair of the fisheries committee say that the government would be supporting this motion. Upon listening to him discuss it further, it seems the government's support is really all smoke and mirrors. He was playing with words. If the government is only going to sit around over a beer or over a glass of wine and consider what they are going to do about the cut, then they are not really doing anything at all.

It is easy for the chair of the fisheries committee and the parliamentary secretary to get up in the House and say that they support the motion, but I would like to know what concrete action they will take to deal with the problem. To concretely deal with it, the government needs to eliminate the cut and implement the increase. Unless the government does that, then the actions about which the chair of the fisheries committee talked are really mute. They are just words.

I have had the opportunity to serve both as chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and as a parliamentary secretary in the past. Fishermen look to the funding of small craft harbours as absolutely crucial to their future. It is shocking to think that the new government wants to cut $20 million from funding. That sounds like what it has done with farmers as well.

While the government left the impression in the budget that it would pay out more money, it is actually paid out less. Government backbenchers left the impression that the government would have immediate cash for farmers this spring, it never came through.

Now the government is eliminating another $20 million from our fisheries, another industry in rural Canada. This is not what we would expect from a government that has a fairly strong rural backbench. Maybe the PMO does not listen to its own backbench. Clearly, the Prime Minister seems to run everything and his word is final. The government seems to be cutting back.

The Conservative government was left in the best fiscal position of any government in Canadian history. A surplus is available to deal with the problems in rural Canada. A surplus is available to increase funding for small craft harbours and for farmers as well. The government has the surplus to do this, but has neglected to do so because it has to give little tax credits to the rich and to the oil industry, which is doing well. What about ordinary people in rural communities in Atlantic Canada and across the country?

The previous government made massive improvements to fishing harbours during its term and it took on the infrastructure issue. However, there is no question that much more needs to be done. Key to the livelihoods of fishermen is the ability to work at their industry. To do that, they need good infrastructure. Wharves are extremely important. Breakwaters are important as part of that wharf, set up to protect fishermen from the high seas and the winds.

Dredging is extremely important in some of areas of the country. The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex mentioned how important dredging was in his area.

Lighting along those wharves, winches to lift the fish out of the boats and boat sheds are important infrastructure. Safe harbour access is extremely important. The wharf has to be in good repair. There has to be protection from the high seas.

I know in a lot of my area and in Atlantic Canada dredging the sand is extremely important. It is not just getting out of the harbour to do the fishing; it is a key safety area. A lot of people in our country probably do not realize that the tides rise and fall. Often in many harbours, fishermen cannot come in at low tide, even with what we have tried to do. They have to time it so the tide is higher in order to get over the sand bars.

I will give an example of a harbour in my area. It is the harbour of Malpeque. It is a very nice little harbour. It has both mussel and lobster fishermen there. We tried to get a commitment with the bureaucracy, under the previous government, I must admit, and the new government. The fishermen of that port and I as an MP felt we had a commitment last fall that small craft harbours would dredge the harbour come spring. It sanded in last fall and the mussel fishermen, who were still operating, had to unload at other harbours. They could come in and go out empty, but they could not come in loaded.

It was going to cost a considerable amount of money to dredge. They accepted that fisheries would not dredge last fall. It was going to sand in, in the wintertime, anyway. However, it was to be done as soon as ice was out this spring. When the ice was gone, DFO did not come through like it was supposed to.

It is not the fault of the staff in Charlottetown. Somebody higher up the line decided that there was a little more sand than expected and it was $10,000 over the limit. Eventually we did get it dredged, but I believe it was public works in the end that did it because it could spend a little more money.

When public works dredged it, instead of widening the channel 60 feet like it ought to have been, it only dredged it 30 feet wide. It did not want to spend the extra $20,000 to do it right. By not doing it right in the first instance, in effect DFO has to re-tender and has to spend all that money over again because it was not done right the first time. That should not happen.

Not only do we have to put more money in small craft harbours, but we have to bring some common sense to the system. If we have to go over a little to do the dredging properly, then somebody should use that common sense. I know people are scared of the new government in terms of having to watch their shadow and accountability, but they should act. That did not happen in this case.

I want to point out another problem with dredging. Every time we go to dredge, the cost of an environmental study is phenomenal. I believe we have a permit for the north side of the island at the moment. That is in place for some time. The amount of money that is spent on environmental studies, doing the same thing over and over again as the years go by, is ridiculous. There should be ways and means, through the bureaucracy in this town and at 200 Kent Street, to overcome that. Rather than give consultants and legal people money, those dollars need to be spent to get the sand out of the harbours and to make the wharves safe.

In terms of the motion, the bottom line is that it is just words from the government unless it eliminates the cut and implements the increase.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a western MP and many people would be surprised to learn that in my prairie riding I have 1,300 commercial fishermen on Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba who are very dependent upon having fully functioning small craft harbours to get their whitefish boats in and out with their daily catch, especially during the season that is upon us. They are out with nets catching whitefish, pickerel, jackfish, saugers and mullets and bringing them back to the fish sheds to get them to market.

There is no doubt that the increase of money that the motion calls for is something that our small craft harbours need. Fishermen have lobbied me on a number of occasions because they felt ignored by the previous government and want to ensure there is more money in the budget to deal with the issue of the small craft harbours.

The member for Malpeque talked about the dredging issue. Dredging is not a new issue. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake we have had an ongoing problem with consistent dredging since 1993 when the Liberals came to power. The mouth of the Red River has not been dredged since 1999. We cannot get the big fishing boats out of Lake Winnipeg and down to Selkirk with their catch. Everything has to be taken by road. Ships come into Gimli and everything is thrown onto trucks and then shipped to Selkirk to the fish plant. They cannot come down the river any more because it has been ignored for so long.

I just had a meeting this morning with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to again plead for the resources to be freed up for the dredging that is needed at the mouth of the Red River so the ships can get to the plant to ready their fish for market.

I really am concerned that we are wasting a lot of time talking about this motion. Everyone in the House agrees to the motion. The government should be taking care of business right now rather than spending a lot of time on the motion. We all agree we need to increase the funding to small craft harbours, and not just increase the funding but actually carry through on the commitment and do a pile of repairs to our small craft harbours throughout the country from coast to coast, including our freshwater lakes.

Does the member feel that this is a proper use of time when we should be dealing with orders of the day and trying to get our government business going forward?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that it is a proper discussion when we are dealing with the concerns of rural Canada. The government business that has been set aside is a proposal that is basically finding ways of going with minimum mandatory sentencing, the net effect of which will be to build more jails and cost more money. Maybe the reason the government wants to take $20 million out of the fishery is to build more jails, which is what is in Bill C-10, while not dealing effectively with crime.

The government wants to Americanize the Canadian justice system, which is what Bill C-10 is all about.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake raised a good point. I have had the opportunity to look at the Lake Winnipeg fishery and it is a good one. Previous fisheries committees have made some recommendations and I will admit that there needs to be more dredging done in that area.

I would ask the member for Selkirk—Interlake to look closely at the motion and to listen to the words of the chair of the fisheries committee. He was kind of floating around all over the place and basically just looking at considering the advisability of raising the funding.

I say strenuously to the member for Selkirk—Interlake that what needs to happen here to deal with his problem and with our problem is to eliminate the cut that the Minister of Finance implemented and implement the increase that the Liberal member for Cardigan proposed. That is what needs to happen and that will go some distance to deal with the problem on Lake Winnipeg.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for a very brief question.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, at the same time I want to set the record straight. It is not because this Parliament had a vote on where soldiers' mission would be that it means our party does not support our soldiers. We support our soldiers, but we should have the right to decide if they are going to go on a certain mission or not. That is where the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's just missed the boat when talking about the wharf.

As for the government, when it says it is going to support the motion, there again, when the member for P.E.I. talks about the $15 million investment and the loss of $20 million, it affects all fishermen. Right now in Nova Scotia a decision will be made very soon as to whether the province is going to vote for a Conservative government or not, and the Conservative government at the federal level is ready to cut $20 million from the fishery, from the help for all the harbours across the Atlantic and the country. That includes Nova Scotia too.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was worried that the member for Acadie—Bathurst fell off the wharf for a minute, but obviously he did not. The bottom line is that there needs to be more money.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forward the question on the motion now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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, Royal Galipeau]

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