Debates of March 25th, 2015

Public Safety

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am dismayed on the point that the word “lawful” was removed in 2001, because it inevitably does include non-violent civil disobedience, wildcat strikes and perhaps events that take place without a permit.

The language to which the parliamentary secretary referred is the very definition that I just read out, which numerous legal experts, including 100 law professors in our country, four former prime ministers and five former Supreme Court justices, have said is vague and over broad. In particular, the Privacy Commissioner for our country has said it would actually blow a hole through privacy rights. That is why it is a very scandalous reality that the Privacy Commissioner is not allowed to testify at the Bill C-51 public safety hearings that are taking place just now.

I will also add for anyone listening that the act would allow the sharing of information “to any person, for any purpose”. This is a dangerous provision for information sharing and it should be removed.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could stand here and do this all day and all night. The fact is that it is clear that the member is trying to find specific issues. I have relayed them back. She gave an example. I stated the example. In this case, it was an American example, Rosa Parks, who certainly would not have been arrested under any kind of conspiracy or any kind of national security act. The member knows it.

Instead, I would love to hear her speak about the issue of national security we face here in this country from a jihadist movement that has actually acted here in Canada on two occasions that we know of. We have prevented other terrorist activities from happening. What I would like to hear from her, instead of getting into the intangibles of the legislation, which it is clear she has an opinion on, is whether she supports the direction this government is moving in. That is certainly the direction most Canadians believe we should be moving in.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up to a question about a policy that was put in place in northeastern Newfoundland on fisheries management. It is about the northern shrimp issue.

Before I get to that, however, I would like to express my condolences in the House to the people of the town of Cottlesville. They have a plant there that employs 150 to 200 people. This past early Sunday, the plant burned down completely, and it is not to reopen. We now have 150 to 200 people out of work who are trying to find work. It is so difficult within these communities because of the nature of the seasonal work and because of how small they are and how dependent they are on the fishery.

Back to the policy in question, what I had asked about was what is called LIFO, or last in, first out.

When it comes to cuts in the shrimp sector, there are basically two sectors we talk about: the offshore and the inshore. In the offshore, there are much larger boats and factory trawlers. They are well off the shores, so they harvest the shrimp, they process it there, and it goes to market. Yes, they provide employment for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is true.

The inshore sector is the one people see if they have watched a show called Cold Water Cowboys. Those are the boats. These boats are certainly less than 65 feet. In this particular sector are the vast majority of people who live in small fishing villages and on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where they work. They work either on the boat or in the plants that process the shrimp itself.

With drastic cuts in shrimp because of the fact that the stocks have declined, cuts had to be made on quotas for each sector. The problem is that the government made in excess of a 25% cut for the inshore sector and only a small cut for the offshore sector.

If we face drastic cuts like this, the entire sector and all the individuals and stakeholders within it should share in that pain. It is an uneven and unfair regime. It does not comply with what we call adjacency, with the people living closest to the resource, in this case, the area 6 shrimp fishing area, being top of mind. We are asking the government to review this type of management principle.

The government will contend that we came up with it as the Liberal Party in 1997. It was talked about, but it was never enacted.

The worst part about this is that the government is asking the inshore fleet, nearest the shore, to take the vast majority of the cuts. The problem is that in 2007, they asked them to invest in that fishery by making these licenses permanent.

This is the situation we are in. I hope that the government will reconsider the last in, first out policy, or as the locals like to say, me included, maybe we should have a FISHNL policy, which is “first in, still here, not leaving”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for raising the issue again. I can assure him, as I did about a month ago, that our government remains committed to the economic prosperity of our harvesters and the sustainability of all of our fisheries.

The member does not seem to recall that the last in, first out policy, or LIFO, was introduced in the mid-1990s under a Liberal majority government. Although he has described the issue fairly well, let me review the history of it.

The offshore fleet had been developing the northern shrimp fishery since the early 1970s. By the 1990s, it was clear that there was an increase in the abundance of shrimp, which allowed temporary entrants, mostly inshore harvesters, to benefit from the increase in shrimp stock available at that time. When this new access was granted to the inshore fishery in 1997, it was made clear that this access would change in line with shrimp stock contractions and that the harvesters who last entered the fishery would be the first to exit.

This is the basic principle, of course, of what we refer to now as the last in, first out policy, also known as LIFO, as my friend has said.

If the member wants to know more about the introduction of this policy, he could consult his colleague, the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte. As I understand, he was a member of the government at that time.

Under LIFO, in shrimp fishing area 6, for example, from 1997 to 2009, the inshore fleet received 90% of any increases, while the offshore fleet received only the remaining 10%. Now that the stocks have changed, the LIFO policy is in effect, as was agreed to by participants. While quota decisions are never easy, our priority has to be the sustainability of the stock for the benefit of future generations.

As I have said, our government is committed to sustainable fisheries. Our thorough fisheries science and research are an integral part of fulfilling this responsibility and form the backbone of all our decision-making process. The scientific process to review the status of key shrimp stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador and in the Arctic occurred recently. Results were presented to industry stakeholders during consultations at an advisory meeting held in the first week of March.

Our government undertakes this process to ensure that industry has an opportunity to comment and provide its feedback. These views help inform recommendations for quota.

The annual management plan takes into full consideration industry input and the best available scientific information. Furthermore, it is very encouraging that 2014 was a year of particularly high prices for shrimp. Early indications for 2015 are that prices for shrimp may remain relatively high. Coupled with lower fuel costs and low interest rates, this presents a real economic opportunity for harvesters.

Finally, I would like to note that we will continue to engage with our northern shrimp industry groups on this fishery. When it comes to fish harvesting decisions, we always look for the right balance between maximizing economic opportunities for fishermen and ensuring sustainable fisheries for generations to come.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question. I am just going to comment.

The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission was elected when I was elected, 11 years ago now, and he has been for quite some time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There have been several ministers, and he has been steadfast as the parliamentary secretary.

Do not let the title fool anyone. He has been a leader in that particular portfolio, whether it was shrimp, small craft harbours, vessel stability, the new Fisheries Act, and so on and so forth. Through all of that, he has been incredibly respectful, knowledgeable, and good to all members in the House who had questions and concerns about fisheries in this country.

I understand he is not running in the next election. I would like to take this opportunity to say to him in the House, on the record, thank you, sir, for your service. You did it very well. Thanks, Randy, and all the best.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The last couple of comments were not parliamentary.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for those kind words. I have enjoyed working with him. Some of that time was on the fisheries committee as well. I know he works very hard for his constituents, and I appreciate that.

Just as I began, let me say that we are committed to ensuring that our hard-working fishermen, whether they be in British Columbia or in Newfoundland and Labrador, have every economic opportunity while making sure that these fisheries remain sustainable.

We have seen some changes in the northern shrimp stock over the years and have had to adapt as necessary. It was made clear when the LIFO policy was introduced that if changes should come to the stock, then the ones that were last in would be the first to exit. These were the terms agreed to previously by all parties, and it is our view that they should continue to be respected.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on November 28, 2014, I asked the Prime Minister to clarify his position on CBC/Radio-Canada. We did not have to wait long before he made it very clear what he really thinks of our public broadcaster.

In an interview with a private Quebec City radio station, the Prime Minister described Radio-Canada as a hotbed of left wingers, or at the very least employees who hate Conservative values.

I think that all Canadians were shocked by these inaccurate and disparaging remarks. However, this is not the first time that the Conservatives have attacked this important Canadian institution. Let us remember that in February 2011 the minister who is now responsible for National Defence accused the corporation of lying all the time.

I recently indicated in the House that the insinuations and threats made by Carl Vallée, the Prime Minister's former press secretary, to CBC/Radio-Canada's news director are unacceptable.

If that is how the Conservatives plan to woo Quebeckers and Canadians, then I can tell them that it will not work. Quebeckers and Canadians care about CBC/Radio-Canada too much for that.

As a result of the Prime Minister's decision to cut funding to anyone who has a different opinion, the crown corporation has suffered, and it will take decades to repair the damage. According to union president Alex Levasseur, “Not only will 800 people lose their jobs, but the Radio-Canada mandate is also suffering”. Eight hundred people is about 10% of all staff at CBC/Radio-Canada.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents CBC/Radio-Canada employees, recently demanded an apology for the absurd and unfounded comments made by the Prime Minister. Thousands of people work at CBC/Radio-Canada. These people have political opinions as varied and as private as those of most Canadians. Perhaps the Conservatives should take that to mean that all Canadians hate them.

After four years of observation as a member of Parliament, I can say that the Prime Minister does not like CBC/Radio-Canada. The best word I can think of to describe it is “contempt”. Contempt for the diversity of public opinion, contempt for quality information, contempt for freedom of expression, contempt for freedom of the press, contempt for journalistic freedom and contempt for freedom of the media in general.

As the critic for the Francophonie, I am very concerned about the consequences the latest round of cuts at Radio-Canada will have on Canada's francophone community.

Since 1936, the CBC has been a beacon for culture and has contributed to the development of our identities and our linguistic realities. However, never since 1936 has any prime minister treated the CBC with such contempt.

The Conservatives have given themselves a lot of rights, but they seem to have forgotten that they also have obligations, including obligations under the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act.

I am worried. The people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and people from across Canada are also very worried and are coming together in support of this cause. Organizations like Ensemble sauvons Radio-Canada and Tous amis de Radio-Canada are bringing together thousands of individuals, artists and public figures. Consider the thousands of petitions that we have been presenting to the House for over a year.

The NDP is the only party standing up against the Conservatives' senseless cuts. It is the watchdog for Canadians' rights and has a blueprint for society to get Canada headed in the right direction.

Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to the Conservatives' partisan plan to tear down this flagship institution that makes us unique. We need a strong public broadcaster.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was there. It kind of jumped all over in about four, five or maybe six different areas. However, what I will do is give a brief overview of the CBC and then certainly respond to a direct allegation that the member has made on two occasions, including here, now, and once in question period.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the matter of our national public broadcaster. Our government provides the CBC with incredible funding on a yearly basis. The CBC is responsible for its own operations. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want to watch and listen to in either of our two official languages.

Canada enjoys a sophisticated and complex broadcasting system within which CBC/Radio-Canada exists. The role of CBC/Radio-Canada as a national public broadcaster is enshrined right within the Broadcasting Act. In fact, the act affirms that the national public broadcaster has the freedom of expression and journalistic creativity and programming independence from government. That does not mean that it is not subject to journalistic standards. The member needs to clearly understand that. These principles are stated multiple times in the Broadcasting Act itself.

The corporation is governed by an independent board of directors appointed by the Governor in Council. In Canada, the role and mandate of the national public broadcaster also stem from the country's particularities. These include our two national languages and a large and sparsely populated territory, and reflect the needs and interests of our increasingly diverse population, our aboriginal population, and the different realities within all of our regions.

CBC/Radio-Canada is expected to inform, enlighten and entertain Canadians and should be distinctly Canadian. It is also expected to actively contribute to the exchange and flow of cultural expression. The public broadcaster is charged with reflecting Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of particular regions. It must strive to produce programming of equal quality in either English or French, and reflect the needs of each official language minority community.

It is a broad mandate, which our national public broadcaster strives to meet by reaching Canadians through a myriad of over 30 television, radio and digital services in both official languages, in eight aboriginal languages and in five languages on an international service. Again, it does not make it immune to the principles stated within the Broadcasting Act.

In order to fulfill its mandate of serving Canadians, CBC/Radio-Canada must manage its various services in a professional and responsible manner in the current environment. Our government provides the corporation with, literally, over $1 billion in annual funding. It is an independent crown corporation. It is responsible for managing its funds effectively to meet its mandate and deliver content of interest to Canadians.

Our government does expect the CBC/Radio-Canada to use these funds as effectively as possible and provide Canadians with content they find interesting and content they want to see and hear.

Let me be clear about the matter the member mentioned though. The CBC ombudsman was very clear on the matter. With respect to this documentary, the ombudsman found that the rules of journalistic standards and practices had not been correctly applied. We respect the ombudsman's finding, so should the member opposite.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member regarding what Canadians want to hear and watch, I would remind him that the people of northern Ontario are soon going to lose the French broadcasting of the Montreal Canadiens' hockey games, even though they want to keep it.

At the national level, one of the main concerns of the groups we talked about earlier is the funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, especially for official language minority communities.

We in the NDP promise to cancel the $115 million in cuts imposed on CBC/Radio-Canada. This is important, and I think the hon. member can understand that. If he has $100 and someone takes away 20%, he will be left with $80. He can go on talking about the $80 he has left and how he will use it, but the fact remains that he will have less.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes some sort of argument that the success, quality, growth, independence and delivery of service that is completed by a crown corporation is going to vastly improve just because money is offered and put on the table. She can say that her party is going to contribute more. That does not mean quality moves up. That does not mean that Hockey Night in Canada stays at the CBC.

What the member needs to understand is the rapidly changing development of programming, of what Canadians want to see, whether it be the demographic of young or old in the country.

What is important to understand is the responsibility of the CBC as a public broadcaster but also the quality of programming that it offers, the quality of programming that it delivers on and the quality of programming that individuals and families across the country watch. When we turn to the CBC we want to make sure that people are going to stay and watch. It is based on quality.

The red herring argument is that somehow money is going to solve all. I think you know, Mr. Speaker, as you have been around here a long time, that money is not the answer to everything. It is quality.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:43 p.m.)