Randy Kamp

[Petitions, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by British Columbians who have some serious concerns about the present member of Parliament pension plan, believing it is extravagant compared to the majority of pensions in the public or private sectors. They are concerned about the proposed review of the MP pension plan and believe that a political review of the current plan should be replaced by an apolitical review and that the findings should be released in their entirety to the public.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Search and Rescue, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think what my colleague is not getting is that this change does not affect the availability of search and rescue resources. They will be out there where they are needed to do their business. In fact, we think they will be able to respond better because all of the people making the decisions will be jointly working in the same location. We think it is a positive change and we are continuing on with it.

[Organ Donation, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, over 4,000 Canadians endure a reduced quality of life and the possibility of premature death, while waiting for an organ transplant.

In 2008, for example, 486 donors were able to provide organs for more than 1,500 transplants, but despite that success, another 300 Canadians died on the waiting list. We know we can and must do better.

Today, Step By Step's Torch of Life Relay is coming through Ottawa. This campaign allows youth to participate in this public conversation and encourages Canadians to sign their organ donor cards.

Following question period today, many hon. members will be in front of the Peace Tower to welcome Ottawa relay participants, including George Marcello, who has walked the length of Canada to promote this issue.

This year, the Ontario portion of the relay is dedicated to Betty Albrecht, whose final gift saved five lives. I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his work on this issue. From many of his friends in Parliament, we miss Betty too.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is why he would be opposed to our talking to fishermen and asking about the barriers they see to earning a living.

He is from the wealthy part of P.E.I., I suppose, where there are lobster fishermen who make a good living, but if he travelled throughout the Atlantic provinces, as he says, then he must have come across fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of the Maritimes who have difficulty making a living. They do the best they can. They have these policies, not just these two but others that might be barriers to their earning a living. We need to listen to them and take their advice. We talked to them and they had every opportunity to respond both by email and letter, and to attend the meetings. Now we are looking at the information they have given us to see if there is a way to provide the prosperity they are looking for.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of opinions with respect DFO's policies in recent days, some from my hon. friend from Cardigan. I am not here to say whether I agree or disagree with these policies but to say that we need to be able to have a discussion about these things. I am not alone in this position. In the words of the respected host of The Fisheries Broadcast in Newfoundland, John Furlong, it is time to have “Discussion without fear of recrimination”.

We have heard a broad spectrum of views and many people have expressed how important it is to understand the origins of these policies. My colleague has mentioned this as well, but allow me to provide a bit more background on both the owner-operator and fleet separation policies to which he has referred.

The fleet separation policy was introduced in the Atlantic inshore fishery in the 1970s. Basically, 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 emerged from the fleet separation policy. This policy requires licence holders to be onboard the vessel to personally fish the licence. It was designed to support the individually operated inshore fleet.

These policies have evolved over time in response to specific requests. Many rules have been adapted over time to allow for exemptions. This has led to regional variations that complicate the administrative process and may create unfair advantages. Thus across the country we can find these policies displayed in many different ways. In British Columbia, for example, neither of these policies are in place. However, in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, a fisherman can get a 120-day exemption from the owner-operator policy, allowing someone else to operate his vessel. Perhaps he is sick during that period. In the Maritimes region, the exemption only permits 30 days. As another example, in some cases processors were providing capital to harvesters in order to secure a supply of fish, and in some cases trust agreements did indeed put the control and decisions in the hands of the processors.

As a result of all these changes, 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. Accordingly, these policies have developed and evolved over the years.

Typically with every rule and policy that has been adopted over time, exemptions have had to be adopted to provide the flexibility that harvesters need to manage their business. Therefore, to be clear, our review is not focused solely on the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, though we recognize their importance to many harvesters in the Atlantic. These policies and others are complex and need to be considered in today's context to see if they remain effective in the face of fluctuating resources and changing market conditions. The purpose of our current work is not to arbitrarily remove or support policies but to see where there are unnecessary complexities and inefficiencies that exist, and to identify barriers to improved economic prosperity for fishers. I hope the hon. member would agree with that goal.

It is for these reasons that we went out to speak with Canadians with an open mind to hear their views on what works and what does not. Now we are going to consider the feedback we received, through in-depth and objective analysis, which will allow us to better understand the issues.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, although the member has raised concerns and some scientists have raised concerns, they are commenting on something they have not been informed about and they need to wait for that.

The fact is in 2009 the Auditor General made several recommendations regarding implementation of the policy for management of fish habitat. She raised some concerns in those years. We have also heard from parliamentarians. Perhaps she herself has raised some issues on this. We have heard from provinces and stakeholders that the policy is in need of renewal. We are serious about making changes that streamline the process and place efforts where they are most needed. We remain committed to the protection of fish habitat and to carrying it out in the most efficient and effective way possible.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interest in this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the comments she made.

Particularly, I want to address the issue of science and how the future of the fishing industry depends on science. I think we agree on this question.

Our department is a science-based organization. In fact, at Fisheries and Oceans Canada excellence in science is the cornerstone of all our operations. That does not mean, however, that we should simply rely on the ways of the past. As a department we cannot stand still in how we approach our scientific mandate. Therefore, over the past year we have implemented changes in how we organize and manage our scientific resources. As a result, there are more opportunities than ever for our scientists to work collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams to address complex multi-faceted challenges.

More to the point, we are using our science assets more strategically. This allows us to strengthen our regulatory capacity and explore new approaches for meeting our crucial oceans management and marine and fish habitat conservation and protection mandates.

The Canadian government is consistently working with our partners domestically and internationally to ensure that future generations inherit healthy oceans and ocean resources. We are protecting our ocean resources on a number of fronts and we are achieving real results.

Scientific knowledge and consultation with our stakeholders will continue to be the basis of our policies. This knowledge and experience will be vital as we continue our work to protect Canada's diverse marine and aquatic resources.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to the conservation and sustainable use of our ocean resources using the best science possible. To do that we depend on our scientific institutes, laboratories and centres of expertise for vital information to make fisheries conservation decisions that are both environmentally sound and economically productive. We will continue to use the knowledge gained from our scientific research to inform decisions and policies that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Given the current financial environment globally, within Canada and within government, it makes good sense to step back, re-calibrate and set a new direction. Therefore, over the past year we have reviewed all of our policies, programs and services. That will ensure they are consistent with our core mandate, relevant to Canadians and effective and efficient in meeting our objectives. In short, we have been moving forward, not backward. Even better, we have been moving forward as a department, together with our partners and stakeholders. That is something in which we can all take pride.

What I am saying is this. Deficit reduction is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity for renewal and transformation. We need to take advantage of this opportunity to take a hard look at ourselves to find better ways to do things. We need to ask ourselves what our core business should be, what the right capacities are, and whether there are better systems and ways of delivering services that will help us keep delivering excellence to Canadians and meet the many demands of the 21st century.

I can assure the House that our future investments in science will be designed to augment our research capacity and assure sustainable fisheries and trade into the future.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what we want, and hope what the opposition wants, is a strong and viable fishery. We are losing that and changes do need to be made. Therefore, the minister is speaking to fishermen asking them if there are changes or ways in which they might have a more stable and economically sustainable fishery. We are listening at this point and will continue to do so. I wish those members would join us in this modernization process.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, these are consultations. The minister is listening to fishermen who have an interest in their way of life. He has no mandate. He is not advocating any particular position in this. He is listening to fishermen because we are committed to the economic vitality of the fishermen and the communities in which they live.