Georges Farrah

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. When one listens to opposition members, ones wonders if the coast guard does anything good in this country.

It is perfectly legitimate to show the concrete and effective action of the coast guard across Canada. Having said this, the issue of funding can indeed be raised. Every organization and department may need funding. However, it is important to note that the coast guard, along with its partners, saves some 3,900 lives in Canada, including 1,500 in British Columbia alone.

It should also be noted that, in the area of environmental protection, the coast guard has, along with the industry, followed up on 1,594 marine pollution incidents in 2001. As regards pleasure craft, the number of fatal accidents in Canadian waters has diminished drastically since 1991. This is partly because of the work of the coast guard and because of all the public awareness campaigns to encourage responsible boating.

I am asking the hon. member if he sees positive things about the coast guard, or if he thinks that all coast guard employees are incompetent. The hon. member could not give us an example. When we look at the global picture in terms of achievements, we see that the coast guard is effective and this should be pointed out.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting one last petition, signed by 102 petitioners, again from the riding of West Nova, in Nova Scotia, asking Parliament to focus its legislation on adult stem cell research in order to identify the necessary treatment and therapy required by Canadians.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling another petition signed by 60 petitioners from the same riding of West Nova, in Nova Scotia, asking Parliament to protect children by adopting the necessary measures to declare illegal any material that promotes pedophilia or sadomasochism involving children.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by 26 petitioners from the riding of West Nova, in Nova Scotia, who are asking the government to pass Bill C-287, An Act to amend the Food and Drug Act regarding genetically modified food.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I told to my colleague from St. John's-West in committee yesterday, I have had a rather frank discussion about the strategy put forward by the committee.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans works in a very objective manner, not a partisan manner. Personally, I have always had a very serious concern about the possibility of imposing rules at the international level when our own waters are not affected. This is the problem confronting us. I have no difficulty telling my colleague that I have raised this issue that concerns me.

Despite all the goodwill in the world, I am not convinced that we can impose rules unilaterally at the international level. This is why we must continue to work hard to convince our partners, in order to preserve a very important resource, particularly for the development of the maritimes and Newfoundland.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been abundantly debated in the last several weeks, especially last night and again this afternoon, with nearly two hours of debate.

Obviously, the government, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in particular, is deeply concerned about the situation beyond the 200 mile zone, east of Newfoundland.

The minister has repeatedly acknowledged that it is unacceptable to have foreign vessels overfishing just outside the 200 mile zone. This has a catastrophic impact on the economy of Newfoundland. We all agree on this.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has had extensive discussions on the custodial management it would like to extend beyond the 200 mile zone. As you know, the committee tabled a report on this just last week, and this report was debated this afternoon.

There is a very fundamental problem here. As a country, can we can impose a way of doing things, a management practice in the international zone? This is quite an issue. My colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, made this point earlier. The former member for St. John's West, the hon. John Crosbie, who was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time, said that it was very hard, almost unthinkable and practically impossible for a government to impose rules in a zone that, unfortunately, does not belong to us.

That being said, I agree with the fact that this does not solve the problem. As I said before, there is overfishing within the 200 mile limit.

However, our government did take some measures to make our NAFO partners understand that they should follow the rules established by member nations, including Canada.

As you know, we arrested some vessels, we closed ports to foreign vessels that had not respected the fishing area, the minister went abroad, and even went to Russia a while ago—the member for St. John's West was there—in order to inform our international colleagues of the fact that their own fishers are not abiding by the rules.

The minister will be leaving this coming Sunday on missions to Spain, Portugal and Denmark, for the specific purpose of raising their awareness of the fact that regulations must be respected.

We need to go further perhaps, and that is what we are asking ourselves at this time. It must be admitted, however, that even if NAFO rules are not perfect, there has been progress in the situation since 1995, nevertheless. Not rapid progress, I admit. Not fast enough for the people of Newfoundland who are suffering—which must be understood, and we do indeed understand it—because of overfishing in international waters. As a result, the Newfoundland community is experiencing huge economic problems.

We believe that we must continue, and in a highly effective and efficient way, to pressure our partners so that our regulations are respected, precisely so that Canadian maritime communities such as Newfoundland may earn an adequate living from its fish resource. This is a very vital resource to the maritime provinces.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me take a few seconds to further explain my position. Concerning the first week of discussions the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had on this, I do not hold this against the hon. member, but he was away on a mission abroad, including in Russia, to deal with issues quite relevant to fisheries. He did not hear my remarks in committee. I said specifically that even if we wanted to impose our regulations beyond the 200 mile limit, it was not practical to do so, internationally.

This is why I said in committee that we had to have a realistic approach. Having an approach that cannot be used does not seem to me to be a good way to uphold the interests of Canadians and of Newfoundlanders.

I had to make this point to let my colleague know that, if he had been present in committee, and he could not be, he would have understood my position better.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's West for his continued interest in the issue of foreign overfishing. Since he comes from Newfoundland, we understand his totally legitimate concern, giving the current situation in the fisheries.

Let me first point out that the Canadian government is taking the problem of foreign overfishing very seriously. The recent closure of harbours demonstrates our determination. We have closed our harbours to Faroese and Estonian fleets because they did not comply with NAFO conservation measures.

We are also pleased to see that Russian authorities have responded seriously to Canada's concerns by withdrawing for the rest of the year the licence allowing the Olga to fish in the NAFO regulated zone, and indicating that they will make further inquiries into the activities of this boat. In carrying out inspections, Canadian authorities have found that the Matrioska made false statements on its catch of black turbot, and a dock inspection confirmed that an offence had in fact been committed. We expect that the Russian authorities will also take action on this.

This confirms that we are aware of the fact that NAFO may have some problems in terms of control. I think that this issue was discussed on several occasions at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Nevertheless, we have to admit that there have been some improvements within NAFO.

Even though we realize that NAFO needs further improvements, we think that it is better to continue to defend Canada's position within NAFO rather than to withdraw, which could make the situation even worse.

This may be where we disagree with our Newfoundland colleagues. I understand that they are saying that overfishing has been going on for a long time and that if we wait any longer, there will not be any fish left. We will not be able to protect the fish because there will be none left. I do not think that withdrawing or unilaterally imposing rules on NAFO will solve the problem, and this is what the minister wants.

In a good number of fisheries, the fish are small. Redfish caught in the 3-O area by all fleets, including Canada's, both in Canadian waters and outside, are small. Scientists consider the small size of such species when they do a scientific assessment of stocks.

In the case of the Tynda , the fish landings fully complied with Canadian legislation and with NAFO's conservation measures. As for the other species caught by the Tynda , it was mostly cod from south of the Grand Banks or the 3N0 cod, and not northern cod. 3NO cod is under a NAFO moratorium. Under these conservation measures, a 5% bycatch is permitted. The bycatch caught by the Tynda was well below this limit. It did not do anything illegal.

According to some sources, the cod livers that were found onboard the ship, and my colleague mentioned this earlier, were from cod from south of the Grand Banks. However, it would appear that the cod livers that were found on the Tynda were already there when it stopped in the Newfoundland port on February 14 to fill up.

We may differ in opinion on the source of information. However, I think that there is a common will, particularly among committee members and the minister, to see to it that additional pressure is brought to bear so that international rules, when there are NAFO agreements, are respected for the welfare of the people of Newfoundland, who need this support.

[Question No. 146, June 6th, 2002]

The following table shows the number of sea and air patrols in the Grand Banks area for the period 1990-2002, figures shown for the year 2002 include the period January 2002 to May 2, 2002 inclusive.

Surveillance Patrols 1990-2002

Note:

Department of National Defense, DND, fisheries patrols, by ship and air, are included in the annual figures provided above for each year indicated. Annual DND sea patrols range 8 to 10 per year, except 2001 when 5 DND patrols were achieved due to 9/11 contingency.

Approximately 55 DND air patrols are conducted in support of DFO each year. DND patrols, air and sea, are provided under the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the two departments . DFO fishery officers are deployed on all DND fisheries patrols.

[Fisheries, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that the situation in Canso is a complicated one. As the minister has indicated on a number of occasions—he has moreover gone to Canso to meet with the people there—we cannot, obviously, provide them with fish that is not there.

Consequently, this is why we are working along with the minister responsible for ACOA to ensure that solutions are found, which will diversify the economy of Canso and ensure that economic development will ensue within the very near future.

Ultimately, while we cannot produce fish that is not there, we are aware of the situation in that area.