Randy Kamp

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, to the member's general point, we know that to create programs that serve the needs of Canadians, we need to hear their views and concerns. That is why our government continues to consult with stakeholders about how to best address the growing skills and labour gap. Unfortunately, the opposition has not supported our low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth, a plan that has created over 900,000 net new jobs since the depth of the recession.

I think it is the opposition that needs to listen to Canadians, who elected this strong, stable, national majority government to manage our economy through these fragile economic times. I want to ask the member to resist the temptation to fearmonger and to instead reassure her constituents that for Canadians who are unable to find work, EI will be there for them, as it always has been.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we have created programs that support the unemployed and that provide the assistance they need to return to the workforce. For Canadians who are unable to find work, EI will be there for them, as it always has been. We are committed to helping the unemployed return to the labour force quickly. Our government's top priority remains job creation and economic growth.

I can also assure the member opposite that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, her hard-working parliamentary secretary and the Minister of State (Seniors) have held consultations in every region of the country on an ongoing basis. In their travels, they regularly meet with stakeholders, including individual citizens, employers, employer associations, labour groups and academics, to talk about important subjects such as employment insurance.

From coast to coast to coast, our government has heard that there is a skills gap that is preventing unemployed Canadians from finding work. That is why this government has invested unprecedented amounts in skills training. We have heard that the EI system can act as a barrier to accepting all available work. That is why we made changes to the working while on claim pilot project that would allow Canadians to earn more by working more.

Is it backtracking to create a new employment insurance benefit for parents of critically ill children? These are steps forward, and they are the direct result of listening to Canadians in many ways. Effective consultation happens in many locations, involves a wide range of stakeholders and is ongoing. In fact, that is how the new EI benefit for parents caring for a critically ill child came about. The government consulted with medical specialists and other stakeholders to find out how this benefit could support parents facing this difficult circumstance.

Consultations with Canadians provides valuable input into our decision-making process. As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has said many times in this place, for Canadians who are unavailable to find work in their local areas, EI will continue to be there for them, as it always has been.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the fact that DFO is just one of our science-based departments that publishes hundreds of papers and gives thousands of interviews and lectures around the country.

In this case, as I have mentioned, when we partner with external scientists, then we need to ensure what the rules are with respect to the intellectual property that is the property of the crown.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, DFO is a science-based department and it engages in science, some of that in partnership with other non-DFO scientists.

What happened in that case is regional officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans advised scientists to seek approval before allowing external partners to publish articles that might include government intellectual property. This was done without the minister's knowledge.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course, none of that is true.

I would be happy to relay those comments to the minister. However, the member will know that the changes that Canada has made to NAFO, for example, have strengthened our ability to combat overfishing. We are continuing to work in that area and are pleased with the results we have seen.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no, we will not, because the common sense changes we are making to the Fisheries Act allow us to focus on commercial, aboriginal and recreational fishers in a way that the previous government was not able to do, and we are continuing on that path.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans is a science-based department. Our scientists give thousands of interviews a year and publish hundreds of papers, some of those in partnership with other non-DFO scientists.

We understand that regional officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans advised scientists to seek approval before allowing external partners to publish articles that may include government intellectual property. That was done without political direction or the knowledge of the minister.

[The Environment, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague has his facts wrong. I do not know where he got his figures from, but they are definitely not accurate.

As I said at the outset, the government has made the decision that it will no longer be operating this facility in the future. While the department is winding down its whole lake ecosystem experiments, it is continuing to invest in freshwater science in other locations across the country.

As I described earlier, the department has an active freshwater research program in many priority areas and departmental scientists are conducting research on freshwater fish habitat and aquatic invasive species.

DFO is focusing its use of research-dedicated resources to priority areas and investing in science where it will do the most to achieve the best results for Canadians.

[The Environment, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to one more time respond about the Experimental Lakes Area.

To summarize, the Government of Canada has made its decision: Fisheries and Oceans Canada will no longer operate the facility. The department recognizes the ecosystem experiments conducted at the Experimental Lakes Area have helped to enhance scientific knowledge of freshwater ecosystems. However, the department is now focusing its scientific work on what is being conducted at other locations across the country to meet its research needs.

The department hopes to transfer the Experimental Lakes Area to another operator that is better suited to managing it and ensuring it is available to scientists in universities or elsewhere who require whole lake manipulations. The department no longer needs to do this type of research.

The research that is conducted at the facility is of interest to many other science-based organizations. This is why departmental officials at Fisheries and Oceans Canada have held a number of discussions with a variety of interested parties. These discussions have resulted in the identification of potential operators. The department remains hopeful that a successful conclusion to those discussions will be reached as quickly as possible.

While Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working to transfer the facility to another operator, the department is continuing to invest in freshwater research in other locations in response to departmental needs. The department maintains an active freshwater fish habitat science program. This research examines fisheries productivity in response to the effects of human activities, including hydroelectric projects and industrial water extraction. In addition, work is conducted to develop tools to assist managers and stakeholders in protecting fisheries.

This past summer, the department invested research funding for a science project to predict and forecast the effects of multiple stressors on fisheries in the Great Lakes. The department also funded research investigating the drivers of fish productivity in fresh water. These projects support commercial, aboriginal and recreational fisheries, and the resulting data will help inform departmental decisions about the aquatic environment and fisheries resources.

In addition to these fish habitat projects, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has invested in science to better understand the risk of aquatic invasive species, a major threat to biodiversity. This supports effective measures to prevent new invasions and mitigate the impact of aquatic invasive species in our freshwater ecosystems. The department is working with the Province of New Brunswick to evaluate efforts to eradicate invasive smallmouth bass from Miramichi Lake, as one example.

In partnership with the United States, the department is managing sea lamprey, through the sea lamprey control program in the Great Lakes.We are also working with the United States to address potential aquatic invasive species. In July 2012, the binational risk assessment for Asian carp in the Great Lakes was publicly released, to help guide Canadian and American prevention, monitoring and control activities. The department is continuing to conduct research on other species of Asian carp.

The department conducts freshwater science activities in various locations across the country, including the Great Lakes, the Fraser River, lakes and streams in the Northwest Territories, Lake Winnipeg and the St. Lawrence River. The department also collaborates with a variety of science partners, including other government departments, provincial governments, universities, industry and non-government organizations. These successful collaborations result in scientific information that the department can use to develop policies and make decisions to support conservation and long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to invest in and maintain our active freshwater science program.

[Ban on Shark Fin Importation Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam for bringing this important issue to the attention of this House.

I think I can safely say that every member of this House, as do I, thinks the practice of shark finning is an awful thing. It involves the removal of the shark's fin while it is still alive and discarding the rest of the animal into the sea to die of suffocation or predation. We all agree that this is deplorable. Where we might disagree is on how to deal with the issue of shark finning, and I am not yet convinced that Bill C-380 is the way.

To remind hon. members, the bill proposes to amend two federal acts: the Fish Inspection Act, to prohibit the importation of shark fins; and the Fisheries Act, to prohibit the practice of shark finning in Canada. As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, has spoken on the Fish Inspection Act, I will focus primarily on the changes proposed to the Fisheries Act.

Bill C-380 calls for amendments to the Fisheries Act to ban the practice of shark finning. However, the bill attempts to fix something that is not broken. Shark finning is banned in Canada and has been for almost two decades. In fact, the practice of finning has been banned in Canada since 1994, through licensing conditions under the fishery general regulations. That ban applies to Canadian fishery waters as well as licensed Canadian vessels fishing outside of our territorial waters.

Shark fishing in Canada is governed by sustainable management plans that include strong enforcement regimes to ensure that finning does not occur in Canadian fisheries, and these apply to all shark fisheries in Canadian waters. Indeed, only a few shark species are harvested in Canada, including spiny dogfish, porbeagle shark, shortfin mako shark and blue shark. These harvests are carefully managed based on the best scientific advice, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is allowed to monitor shark populations in order to ensure their conservation. The shark fishery in Canada is highly regulated, with rigorous dockside monitoring. In fact, Canada maintains the first and only shark fishery in the world to be certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

As mentioned, in 1994, due to rising concerns over the practice, the Canadian government prohibited shark finning. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was given the ability to do this under section 7 of the Fisheries Act, which sets out the minister's authority to issue leases and licences for fisheries or fishing. Section 22 of the regulations provides the minister with specific authority to set out targeted licence conditions for the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish. These provisions provide the minister with the authority to impose measures to eliminate shark finning as a licence condition.

Therefore, the regulations already allow the minister to impose, as a licence condition, measures to eliminate shark finning, which has been done. Today, all licence holders for Canadian shark fisheries and for fisheries where sharks are landed as bycatch are subject to licence conditions that prohibit them from engaging in shark finning. Why try to reinvent the wheel with Bill C-380?

The ban is enforced through a number of different internationally accepted methods across Canada. One approach requires that the number of fins correspond with the number of shark carcasses landed by shark fishing vessels. Under a second and more common approach, the number of fins on shark fishing vessels cannot exceed 5% of the overall weight of carcasses onboard when it lands. Both methods are intended to ensure that sharks are not being caught solely for their fins.

All licensed shark fishing vessels in Canada are subject to 100% monitoring to ensure this ratio is respected. Any violation of a licence condition is an offence under the Fisheries Act. Penalties for those found to be in contravention of their conditions of licence range from warnings, to prosecution, to requests for a court-imposed licence suspension and quota penalties, to loss of the privilege to renew the licence.

These measures were put in place to ensure Canada's shark fishery conforms to sustainable harvesting practices. It is a very practical approach and it has worked well. There has been only one minor breach in recent years; otherwise shark finning has not been an issue in Canadian fisheries. I would also add that Canada's approach is an internally accepted standard within regional fisheries management organizations.

While the bill is flawed, there are other ways to address the issue. For example, the proposed amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would provide new tools for Canadian officials to seize shipments of fish products that have been caught illegally, such as shark fins. The proposed revisions to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act currently being reviewed by the Senate, as Bill S-13, would provide the legislative authority for Canada to prevent the import of fish products from illegal sources. Additionally, Canada has worked with other countries to put an end to this practice. The Government of Canada will continue to work with our international partners to ensure sustainable management of sharks, including the prohibition of the practice of finning.

Globally, Canada promotes the sustainable management and conservation of sharks through international organizations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and regional fisheries management bodies, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. There are also a number of international agreements, to which Canada is a party, which govern the conservation management and trade of certain at-risk shark species. For instance, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, usually called CITES, protects the great white shark, and basking and whale sharks. Imports of any of these shark species, or any of their parts, into Canada is only permissible if accompanied by an export permit from the country of origin that certifies the imported shark, or products derived from it, was caught in a scientifically proven sustainable fishery.

Furthermore, proposals have been submitted to have three more added, at the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties convention to be held in March.

To summarize, Canada has taken action against the deplorable practice of illegal shark finning. This practice has been banned in Canada since 1994. Canada believes that working through regional fisheries management organizations to ensure strong management and enforcement practices globally is the most effective way to prevent unsustainable shark fishing practices, such as finning. A complete trade ban would penalize responsible legitimate fishing practices without addressing overfishing practices or improving global fisheries management. We will continue to support responsible, legal shark harvesters and crack down on those who break the rules.

Given the above, the government cannot support the private member's bill, Bill C-380.