Mr. Speaker, more talk about shipping our--
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2011, with 49% of the vote.
Shipbuilding February 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, more talk about shipping our--
Finance January 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, it would have been nice to get an answer to my question, which is, where are the resources for the communities in British Columbia? We know very clearly that a wild salmon policy was released. Where are the dollars? Without the fiscal framework for this kind of wild salmon policy, it is virtually useless. It is more smoke and mirrors.
Aquaculture is a really good example, and I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. The sustainability commissioner's report actually pointed out the fact that the big problem with aquaculture is there is no environmental assessment on its impacts. It may have an economic spinoff in the community, but we want to know what it is doing to our wild salmon stocks. That information is missing.
I again want to come back to the resources that are attached to the fishery. There was a Canadian human rights report that talked about DFO's shocking attitude toward women, so we would appreciate if there was a more--
Finance January 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a question I asked on October 27 last year. Since I asked my question on the sustainability and environment commissioner's report on salmon stocks, habitat and aquaculture, the government has released its long awaited wild salmon policy, and I mean long awaited.
On the Pacific coast, many of the fisheries are facing problems. The top problem is the push towards privatization of the resource by the government's system of licensing and quotas.
Many of the fishing communities along the coast have seen the wealth of their resource transferred out of the community into the hands of armchair fishermen. These are investors who can afford the high cost of buying a licence, who then lease out that licence to real fishers in communities.
It has led to a situation on our coast that the Native Brotherhood of B.C. and the United Fishers and Allied Workers' Union--CAW, detailed in their report “A Rich Fishery or A Fishery for the Rich?”. I will quote from that report. It states:
It would turn a formerly rich fishery into a fishery for the rich, a forced and dictatorial transformation that is against democracy, against communities, and against the national interest in a great and historic resource, on a coast that fishermen helped to build.
Licensing and quota systems also remove the decision-making about the resource from the communities that depend on a sustainable fishery.
The wild salmon policy does talk about socio-economic benefits and that the first nations, fisheries and community interests in salmon stock need to be involved in management actions. However, there is no commitment to stop the changes in ownership of quotas and licences to enable those communities to regain control over their fishing stocks.
Without that community control and interest in salmon stock, the DFO's plan to increase research and monitoring will fail because it depends on local partnerships to collect information instead of trained research staff based in communities. That has already led to gaps in the scientific knowledge of salmon runs. That means a lack of planning and a lack of follow through. The 2004 Fraser sockeye run is a case in point.
DFO officials were very surprised by the amount of salmon returning to the mouth of the Fraser and then they were surprised by how few salmon actually reached the spawning grounds.
As the commissioner's report states, in 2002 users were critical of the data available to manage that year's Fraser River sockeye fishery. There were concerns whether in season estimates of abundance, migration timing and route, stock composition and catch reporting were timely, adequate or accurate.
The wild salmon policy depends on increased monitoring, but funding for fisheries enforcement officers has dropped significantly since the mid-1990s. There are currently only 170 enforcement officers for all of B.C. and Yukon. This is a shameful state of affairs. Meanwhile, there have been calls both in the fisheries committee here in Ottawa and in the communities in B.C. for staff to be moved to the coasts where the resources are located. I think somebody has asked how many wild salmon are in Ottawa.
The NDP will not let the Pacific fishery be taken for granted. Will the minister explain how he will improve staff levels so we can get credible information on salmon stocks, habitats and harvest? Will he commit to increasing the number of fisheries officers on the coast so communities have reliable, accurate and adequate information on all salmon runs from the river mouth right to the spawning grounds?
Question No. 41 January 31st, 2005
Under the Softwood Industry and Community Economic Adjustment Initiative administered by Western Economic Diversification Canada: ( a ) how many projects in British Columbia were allocated funding; ( b ) of these projects, how many have had their allocation rescinded and for what reasons; and ( c ) to what other projects have the monies been reallocated?
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Madam Chair, I do not think anybody is suggesting that the federal government go in, clear cut and plant trees. We are asking the federal government for some leadership.
A short term strategy that talks about clear cutting enormous amounts of timber to prevent wasting timber fails to recognize things like a disruption in forest plans, straining harvest and milling capacity, over supplying the market, decreasing lumber prices and reducing long term timber supply. It is that long term timber supply that is really critical for many of these communities.
I keep talking about the socio-economic impact on communities. That is why a plan needs to be comprehensive and detailed in its scope. The plan should not just look at the issues around the pine beetle and the immediate impact it is having. That is where the federal government has a role to play in providing leadership and a long term strategy. The plan also should include working closely with the provinces.
Could the member comment on that issue?
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Madam Chair, I want to point out that I am suggesting that there needs to be a multiple level approach to this particularly complicated problem. That is why I am encouraging us to look beyond just purely clear cuts.
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Madam Chair, we understand that if we go ahead with these clear cuts, we will very quickly deforest large tracts of land. This will have a longer term impact on the communities.
We need to engage local communities in the discussion. It is absolutely critical that the people who will bear the longer term brunt are at the discussion table, along with their provincial comrades. It is critical because they are the people who will have to talk about whether they retool their mills, whether they need a retraining strategy because people will not be able to work in the forestry sector, and whether or not we have to look at a different kind of value added component.
In the short term, we will have lots of jobs. It is the longer term that I am really concerned about. Many rural communities in Alberta and British Columbia are already impacted by other strategies that are harming them. Softwood lumber is a good example, and of course fishing, which we do not want to talk about tonight. We need that longer term rural strategy that involves people from the community in the discussions.
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Madam Chair, I welcome the member's comments.
It is really unfortunate that is what happens when we have the kind of situation that we currently have in B.C. Anyone who has flown over parts of B.C. will see the swaths of brown trees as our forests die off.
It is unfortunate that instead of talking about the cold, hard facts about what is happening in communities and to people's lives, we end up pointing fingers about who picked up the phone first.
As other members have pointed out, this is a natural disaster in our provinces. We need something more than another report. We need some action that talks about how we deal with this so people are not on the streets.
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Absolutely. I am glad the minister can count. I would like him to count the number of jobs that are being impacted by this epidemic. Yes, I welcome the minister's invitation to visit him. I will be doing that early in the new year.
This is a critical issue. It is fine to point fingers, but we want some solutions. We want to see something that talks about how we are going to protect jobs in communities in British Columbia and Alberta. As has been pointed out, it seems that once a person crosses the Rockies we are off the radar.
I would welcome a more community oriented approach. We need to talk to our mayors and our municipalities that are directly impacted by this problem. We should involve them, unlike the softwood lumber solutions where in my community they have had to actually let the money go because of ridiculous regulations that do not allow them to meet the deadline.
Forestry December 13th, 2004
Madam Chair, I am a brand new member, so I would have welcomed a conversation with the minister a year ago. It would have been wonderful to have seen him in my community of Nanaimo—Cowichan.