Randy Kamp

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in fact there are some prosperous, well-managed fisheries on the west coast as well that operate by a different set of policies.

The minister, as I said, went to the east coast to see what works and what does not work. Both speakers so far have indicated that many fishermen and fishermen's groups have given us input that the owner-operator policies and fleet separation are important. We are certainly aware of their feelings on that and we are taking that into consideration.

We try to keep our eye on the goal, which is productive fisheries, sustainable fisheries that provide a living for people, that provide prosperity for communities and that will be there for future generations as well.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague began with something of a conspiracy theory and that is not the case here. He ended by saying that the Atlantic fishery is doing so well. In some cases it is and in some cases it is not. I believe he can think of some fisheries where fishermen are not making a living.

Our commitment as a government is to improving Canada's fishing industry. We think that the industry can do better in terms of providing a livelihood for Canadians and contributing to the Canadian economy. It was for those reasons that we went out to speak with Canadians with an open mind to hear their views on what works and what does not, because we certainly heard about some things that do not work. We wanted to hear directly from those who make a living in this business, about what they need not only to survive, as I said earlier, but also to thrive in an increasingly competitive and global marketplace. The process that was followed in this national engagement was threefold.

We wanted first of all to inform stakeholders of recently announced improvements to the fisheries management regime. Of these changes, such as longer-term management plans and multi-year science advice, it is important that fishermen know that this is a transition we are making and we think it will provide the industry greater stability and better enable fishermen to make long-term business decisions.

Second, part of the consultation included getting feedback and input on new draft policies and tools that aim to improve the sustainability of the resource. The government recognizes that sustainability of the resource is critical to the economic prosperity of the industry. If we do not have any fish, it does not matter if we have the right policies. Sometimes it is easy to forget that. For example, a modern fisheries management approach needs to address issues around bycatch and there were some discussions about that. Implementing policies like these is not only good for the resource, but it is also good for the industry in that it helps prove to retailers and consumers that the product was harvested in a sustainable way.

Third, we wanted to hear people's thoughts on how the complex web of rules currently governing fisheries could be streamlined. In short, we asked the question, “What do you need to be able to compete on a global scale?” Again, there were no pre-conditions on what could be suggested. We wanted to hear all views. When someone suggested that we change a specific policy, our reaction was “Why?”, not “Sorry, we can't consider that”. In examining an issue as complex as Canada's fisheries management regime, we cannot arbitrarily exclude key elements in our analysis. We have to look at the whole system and all of its rules, policies, practices, management measures and regulations, and we have to look at how each of those parts interacts with the others. Then we have to ask whether this system is achieving the goals that we think it should and if the system is providing Canadians with a sustainable resource and improving economic prosperity. Those are the questions we have been asking to which we have been receiving responses.

In general, the response to this process was encouraging. It yielded thousands of responses from people, including independent harvesters, processors, aboriginal groups, NGOs, academics and the broader public, some even from outside the country. All of these views and opinions need to be considered if we are to examine fisheries as a whole. As I have said, we are now in the process of reviewing and analyzing all of the submissions we received. This input will help guide the minister and his officials as we move forward to work to continually improve fisheries management in Canada.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if one takes the approach that the member is suggesting, then the consultation is a farce.

The minister said the fishermen agreed with us that this should be a prosperous, sustainable, stable industry. He asked if there were any polices that they had difficulty with that should be changed to allow a more prosperous future where they can survive and thrive.

If the member thinks that every fisherman in Atlantic Canada who contributed to this particular issue wants to maintain these two policies, then he is mistaken. There are two views on this and the minister is considering them both and then we will move forward.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have heard a lot of opinions on these two policies, and on a number of others as well. I am not here to say whether I agree or disagree, or the minister agrees or disagrees, with what he is saying. However, I am saying we need to be able to have a discussion on these issues. I am not alone in this position. In the words of the host of The Fisheries Broadcast in Newfoundland, John Furlong, it is time to have a discussion without fear of recrimination. I hope he agrees with that.

In fact, we have heard a broad spectrum of views and many people have impressed the importance of reviewing the origins of policies.

My colleague has defined the terms “owner-operator” and “fleet separation”. However, let me provide a bit more and perhaps a bit of history on it, as well.

The fleet separation policy was introduced in the Atlantic fishery in the 1970s. It states that corporations and processing companies may not be issued new fishing licences. Originally, the purpose was to separate the harvesting sector from the processing sector to help prevent any one group from controlling the supply chain.

The owner-operator policy was introduced in the 1980s to address an imbalance that actually emerged from the fleet separation policy. This policy requires licence holders to be on board the vessel to personally fish the licence. It was designed to support the individually operated inshore fleet, as my colleague has said.

These policies have evolved over time in response to specific requests. Many rules have been adopted over time to allow for exemptions. This has led to regional variances that complicate the administrative process and may create unfair advantages. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a fisherman can get a 120-day exemption from the owner-operator policy, allowing someone else to operate his vessel. In the Maritimes region, the initial exemption only permits 30 days.

Another example is, in some cases, processors were providing capital to harvesters in order to secure a supply of fish. In some cases, trust agreements did indeed put control and decisions in the hands of the processors.

As a result, another policy was introduced in 2007 to preserve the independence of inshore harvesters and strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. Last year, the fleet separation policy was further amended to allow wholly owned corporations to hold fishing licences. There has been some evolution of these two policies.

Typically, with every rule and policy that has been adopted over time, exceptions or exemptions have had to be adopted to provide the flexibility that harvesters need to properly manage their business.

To be clear, our consultations were not focused solely on the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, though we recognize their importance to harvesters in the Atlantic.

These policies, and others, are complex, often with inconsistencies between fisheries and regions. They need to be considered in today's context to see if they remain effective in the face of fluctuating resources and changing market conditions.

We continue to believe that the fisheries can, and should, contribute more to the Canadian economy and generate more wealth for those who work in it. We are always looking for ways to give industry the tools it needs to operate in an environment that is more sustainable, stable, and economically prosperous.

The purpose of the work that we are doing in the consultations and continued review is not to arbitrarily remove policies, but to see where unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies exist and question barriers for improved economic prosperity for fishers.

It is for these reasons that the minister and his officials went out to speak with Canadians with an open mind to hear their views on what works and what does not. Now we are considering the feedback we have received through in-depth and objective analysis. This will allow us to better understand the issues and know the best way forward.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one point, and then I have a question.

As I said to my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, we are well aware of the preliminary report of the language commissioner, and that is why we are moving more slowly on this and making sure we have the necessary people in place.

It is certainly not impossible to do that. It sounds as though they are quite pessimistic about finding those kinds of people with those abilities. Whether it is people who take the transfer and move, or whether it is people who are found or trained, this transition will take place when that capability is in place.

The member makes it sound a little bit as though the person who takes the call puts down the phone, heads out the door, gets into a boat and makes the rescue. Surely she knows that it does not work like that. This is a communications function.

The same people who responded to an incident a year ago are going to be the people who respond a year from now, after this transition. I wonder if the member is aware of that.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns, particularly about the consolidation of the Quebec City marine sub-centre into Trenton.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the concerns he has raised in terms of the linguistic ability, for example. We are concerned about that, and that is why we are moving more slowly in terms of that consolidation. In fact, we have said that will not be an operational transition until we are convinced that all of the necessary abilities and qualifications are in place, including the ability to have bilingual communications.

We do not have a date for that, but the one on the east coast has already happened. This one is at least several months away, while we get those in place. I wonder if the hon. member is aware of that.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for her attempt, there were so many inaccuracies in her speech that I hardly know where to start. For one thing, her speech was so full of fearmongering that she really should be embarrassed. Pretending that a station at Kitsilano is going to deal with oil tankers coming down the B.C. coast is just ludicrous, ridiculous at least.

The minister and I have probably been on many more Coast Guard ships and at more Coast Guard stations than she has. Has the member ever visited a Coast Guard auxiliary station and talked to those people who are well trained and who put their lives at risk on behalf of Canadians for no money? We provide money so they can have the proper equipment to help them with that. Has she ever visited there?

The member referred to Salmon Arm. It is actually Indian Arm. Salmon Arm is in the interior, the place of my birth. There is one there and there is one at Howe Sound, so they cover the area up to the Lions Gate Bridge, both from different directions. There are three others in the area. I wonder if she knows that. I also wonder if the member has ever visited them.

Did the member miss the point that we are putting in place this new inshore rescue boat station which is used throughout the country in a very effective way and will be able to respond to exactly the kinds of things to which she is referring?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly does not understand this issue very well.

We looked at our marine communications and traffic centres. We found out that we had quite a few across the country, and yet they were not as effective as they should be. At times centre A and centre B could not even communicate with each other.

It became very clear to us that if we were to keep, as we are doing, the same number of radio towers and the same number of radar installations, which really do the work on behalf of these centres, and put new technology into a smaller number of centres so there can be the necessary redundancy in case one service goes down as a result of an unexpected event, then we can do this task in an efficient and better way with this new technology in a smaller number of centres.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that in his recitation, the member did not mention the new inshore rescue boat station, which in many areas of the country provides the first response.

They have boats that go at about 45 knots. They are capable and effective. The people who are part of that station are well trained, and they will be in the heart of the harbour somewhere.

Nor did the member mention the fact that we continue to have discussions with the Pacific auxiliary, the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue people, about perhaps strategically locating another station. With these assets, in addition to the vessels of opportunity—the police boats, and so on—we are very convinced that we can do this in a safe and effective way.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very good point. On the other hand, I would say that this is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise.

We have said, though, that we feel, as every responsible government should feel, an obligation to take the available financial assets and make sure they are used in the most efficient and effective way.

When we took a look at search and rescue services in the Vancouver area, it became clear to us, after extensive analysis and consultation with our search and rescue partners at national defence, that it could be done in this way while providing the same effective level of service that mariners in the Vancouver area have come to expect.