Randy Kamp

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. We see this time and again when we bring forward improvements and new funding opportunities. As I mentioned in my comments and as stated in economic action plan 2012, there was a comprehensive plan to improve the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, a $5.2 billion plan, and the opposition voted against these things. It makes no sense to me.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question. We followed the protocol that was in place at the time. We contacted the province. Because there is more than one municipality involved, not just the city of Vancouver but others, the expectation was, according to the protocol, that it would contact the municipalities that needed to be informed. The commissioner has said that is something we need to look at to see if we need to change that protocol so we do the contacting rather than expect the province to do it.

In fact, the city of Vancouver was contacted before the morning, as has been reported, but we are certainly willing to take a look at that to see if it needs to be improved.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I think my colleagues knows, it is the responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard to make decisions as it consults with partners and those in the field. The Canadian Coast Guard has its own marine search and rescue experts. In fact, considerable work was done to analyze this new arrangement to provide search and rescue services in the greater Vancouver area, with Sea Island being the primary source of services.

Also, the HMCS Discovery inshore rescue boat station was put in place as well as the services of the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, which is a volunteer organization. In fact, I think the member will find, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, that the system has worked very well.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to note that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

Our government's policy is always the safety of Canadians and the protection of the environment. Our government has taken steps to improve our marine safety system through unprecedented investments in the Canadian Coast Guard. As well, we are committed to ensuring that the companies that cause marine pollution incidents pay for any of the clean-up operations that may be required.

In response to the MV Marathassa fuel leak, the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia, and their partners have been working together to clean up the pollution and protect the marine environment. Due to their dedicated work, these efforts have been successful. In fact, this past weekend, the City of Vancouver announced that many of the beaches are now re-opened.

As the Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner has repeatedly said, the response to the MV Marathassa fuel leak was immediate, measured, coordinated, and effective. I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to the dedicated service of the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard, who tirelessly work every day to keep mariners safe across Canada. I hope everyone in this House would join me in congratulating them.

As a British Columbian, I would like to extend specific thanks to all the Coast Guard personnel involved in the containment and clean-up efforts associated with this unfortunate incident. There has been a lot of speculation from different sources regarding the Coast Guard's response to this leak. I would like to provide the house with a summary of the events, as reported by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Although this operation has been publicly discussed by both the commissioner and the assistant commissioner of the Coast Guard, I believe it is important that we take the time to appreciate the hard work that went into those early hours of the operation.

In the early evening of April 8, at around 5:00 p.m., the Canadian Coast Guard received a report of a potential oil slick around the bulk carrier MV Marathassa. Within minutes of receiving this notification, the information was shared with Port Metro Vancouver. A pollution report was then issued to inform DFO, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Joint Rescue Command Centre, Port Metro Vancouver, and the provincial authority, Emergency Management BC. Within 30 minutes of receiving the notification, vessels were sent to investigate the report.

During the early evening, various sources were reporting a non-recoverable spill. However, as the Canadian Coast Guard and its partners performed additional assessments, they determined that the situation was more serious and took action.

By 9:25 p.m., Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, the certified organization responsible for cleaning up marine pollution, was on the scene, and a Canadian Coast Guard incident commander had taken charge.

During the overnight hours, the Canadian Coast Guard and its partners were able to determine which of the many vessels in the harbour was the source of the fuel. The team carried out skimming in the dark and secured the boom to the MV Marathassa to contain the leak. Even before most British Columbians had woken up, the boom was secure and completely surrounded the vessel.

By 9:00 a.m. the next day, the Coast Guard had established a unified command with its many response partners involved, including the province and the City of Vancouver. As the Coast Guard Commissioner has repeatedly stated, within the first 36 hours, 80% of the pollution had been recovered.

As we can clearly see, the Coast Guard and its partners took strong and deliberate action to address the spill. They engaged the proper response authority with the capacity and expertise to do the job and ensured that the appropriate containment and clean-up efforts were under way.

I will now address the specific motion brought forward today. First, I would like to respond to views expressed about the closure of the Kitsilano search and rescue station. The Coast Guard Commissioner has confirmed that this station never provided these types of environmental response operations, and its presence would not have changed how the Coast Guard responded to this incident.

In fact, the assistant commissioner of the Coast Guard for British Columbia has also clearly stated that the Kitsilano station would not have made an iota of difference to the response. I encourage the opposition to listen to the experts when it comes to managing this kind of marine incident.

Second, I would also like to take this opportunity to address the point raised by the opposition regarding the modernization of our Marine Communications and Traffic Service Centres. Again, their arguments miss the mark.

The modernization of these centres will in fact strengthen the effectiveness of the services the Coast Guard provides to mariners and improve work efficiency for the officers at the station. These strategically-located centres will have state-of-the-art technology. As a result, equipment will be more reliable, disruptions will be reduced and service coverage will remain the same.

The reorganization of these centres has absolutely no bearing on the MV Marathassa response and will only improve marine safety through the addition of improved technology. Suggestions otherwise are simply ill-informed.

I encourage opposition members to focus their attention instead on our government's support of the polluter pays principle, which requires the polluter to pay the full cost associated with an oil spill cleanup, including third-party damages. Members could also focus on the fact that the Coast Guard maintains environmental response equipment in more than 80 sites across the country and has over 75 trained and experienced environmental response personnel available to mobilize, monitor, advise and take action in addressing pollution incidents and protecting the marine environment.

I would also remind hon. members that our government's economic action plan 2012 provided $5.2 billion for the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet renewal plan to ensure that the Coast Guard had the tools it needed to get the job done.

The Coast Guard has clearly stated that it would work with its partners to conduct a complete and thorough review of how the incident was handled and where operations could be improved. Like always, the work that takes place after an incident of this nature will help improve our nation's already robust incident command system and marine safety in general.

As a resident of British Columbia, I fully understand and share the concern expressed over the MV Marathassa's pollution into English Bay. However, it is simply not correct to state that these unrelated organizational changes to the Canadian Coast Guard are somehow linked to the specific response to this incident. As I have stated, the Canadian Coast Guard leadership has been crystal clear in this regard. I suggest that hon. members of the opposition listen to those who know marine safety best.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the hard-working men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard and all the marine safety partners for their tireless work to keep Canadians and the marine environment safe.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he was mostly reading from a newspaper. Is he aware that in the two years since February 2013, when the Kitsilano search and rescue station was closed, there have been 851 search and rescue operations in response to distress incidents in the greater Vancouver area? They were responded to by the station at Sea Island as well as by the inshore rescue boat HMCS Discovery, and all 851 were responded to successfully within 30 minutes.

Could he clarify why the NDP members, with all their bravado, have consistently voted against all the additions and all the changes we have made to the Coast Guard, with $5.2 billion in fleet improvements and so on?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would express to my colleague that that is plain nonsense. The Kitsilano station was a search and rescue station, not an environmental response station. It had a small amount of equipment that could be used in search and rescue operations, for example, if a sailboat overturned and its fuel tanks were leaking into the water. It had a small amount of equipment to handle something like that. It certainly was not and never would have been asked to respond to an incident like the one with the grain carrier.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 25th, 2015]

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.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 25th, 2015]

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.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 23rd, 2015]

Let me say that as someone with hearing loss, Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate a question from this member. However, there seems to be no correlation between the volume of the question and the quality of the question.

With respect to the question, when it comes to fish harvesting decisions, we always look for the right balance between maximizing economic opportunities for fishermen and ensuring sustainable fisheries.

Our management decisions are always based on science, and we share this science with both the inshore and offshore industry to ensure they have an opportunity to comment. We are waiting for that input.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's interest in this issue. I can tell him that the minister is committed to balancing economic opportunity while promoting the sustainability of the northern shrimp fishery. Reductions to quotas are never easy, but our priority has to be sustainability.

The last-in, first-out policy has been part of this fishery since 1997, when it was introduced by the Liberal government. Under that policy, the new entrants received the vast majority of the new access with the understanding that if reductions were necessary in the future, the LIFO policy would be in effect.

It is our view that the terms agreed to previously need to be respected.