Shawn Murphy

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

The interest rate was 11%. Unemployment was 12%. The debt to GDP ratio was 71%. I know all the figures. I know the disaster we were into.

My question for the hon. member is how can we assure Canadians on February 1, 2005 that these policies and these programs will not ever be visited on Canadians again as long as we live?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member regarding the first sentence he made in his speech, that a surplus was the amount that Canadians were overtaxed.

I want to go back in history and remind the member that his party was in power from 1984 to 1993. At the end of that period the deficit was approximately $43 billion and the net accumulated debt of the country went from approximately $300 billion to $560 billion. My suggestion is that the surplus that is occurring now is not an overtaxation. It is a payment by Canadians paying for the disaster that occurred between 1984 and 1993. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me.

Over the last number of years we have only been able to pay for a small part of that disaster. It should be realized that the debt accumulated was approximately $240 billion. At $11 billion a year Canadians can see that it will take generations to pay for the disaster that occurred during that period of time.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this issue was continually raised. The headquarters of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is in Ottawa. My colleagues from the east coast suggest that it should be moved to the east coast and my colleagues from the west coast suggest it should be moved to the west coast. I should point out to the hon. member that only about 10% or 11% of the employees of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are located here in Ottawa. They are in every coastal community in the east coast, the west coast, and I should point out, the Arctic coast in the territories.

I know there are concerns out there about enforcement, about science and about management. It is a tremendously large industry. The member is probably correct; it could probably stand more resources. I am hopeful it will receive more resources in the upcoming budget.

The department is doing a good job in managing our fisheries.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about Pacific salmon and the B.C. fisheries in general this evening and to respond to the question from the hon. member.

I had the opportunity during the early part of December to travel to British Columbia, where I participated in the hearings on the problems associated with the 2004 Fraser River salmon run. Although I do not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question, I certainly share her concern about the wild Pacific salmon. After all, Pacific salmon make a valuable contribution to the economy, culture and heritage of this nation, particularly in that province. I think it actually goes beyond that. The actual value was $630 million, and that is close to one-quarter of the national total.

I would like to begin by reiterating that in making all of its decisions, the government looks at what is in the best interests of Canadians. Decisions about salmon are no different. We had the situation in British Columbia regarding the advice of the minister not to list the Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye under the Species at Risk Act. This was made after great deliberation.

A SARA listing would have significant economic impacts of more than $125 million in lost revenue to the sockeye fishery by 2008 and would probably lead to the virtual shutdown of the southern British Columbia commercial sockeye industry. This would hit coastal communities very hard, communities such as Nanaimo.

The Department of Fisheries is focusing instead on protecting and rebuilding these populations. The department has already spent approximately $1 million and will continue to do so aggressively to implement the action plan. The protective measures that are in place include substantial reductions in the commercial sockeye fishery implemented under the Fisheries Act.

While I have the opportunity, I would like to say a few words also about aquaculture because that was raised in the original question from the minister. This again is a major industry on the west coast. The total annual aquaculture production in the country has now reached $322 million. That was the 2002 figure. It has become a significant economic activity, but it is one that we have to monitor very closely.

Dealing with some environmental issues, before DFO approval is made, sites must undergo an environmental review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This part of an extensive review process governed by both federal and provincial environmental legislation.

There are a couple of other initiatives I want to draw to everyone's attention. The first has already been raised by the hon. colleague, and that is the wild salmon policy which was released approximately one month ago. That provides a clear and consistent framework for the conservation of wild salmon in British Columbia. It is also consistent with SARA and will support its implementation. This was one of the key issues identified by the Commissioner of the Environment in her report.

Finally, Mr. Bryan Williams, a former British Columbia chief justice, is leading a review of all salmon fisheries in southern B.C., including the Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye. The review is open and independent and will provide timely advice on fisheries management.

I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate about the salmon industry on our west coast.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

No.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my learned friend is supporting the legislation. I listened to his speech yesterday and it certainly is an important issue, not only for his province but also for my province.

He asked the question about whether the fines are large enough. My answer is that they probably are not. He asked whether they will eliminate oil pollution in Pacific and Atlantic waters. The answer, unfortunately, is probably no. The other question on whether they will be a help, my answer is, yes.

When we have fines in the magnitude of $300,000 and $500,000, and when our rules and regulations are in sync with what we see on the Atlantic coast in the United States, that is so important so there is no benefit to doing anything wrong in Canadian waters. This is an important part of the legislation but the fines, the mandatory surveillance and the satellite imaging, when everything is looked at in perspective, the legislation, although it certainly would not eliminate oil pollution on our coastal waters, it would be a big step forward, which is why I, like my learned friend, will be supporting the legislation.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House today and add my comments to those already voiced about Bill C-15, this important initiative that would help prevent the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds every year across our coasts.

As has been indicated by my colleagues, I too am seeking to prevent the deaths of murres, puffins, great black-backed gulls and many other species of seabirds every winter as a result of the intentional or negligent illegal release of oil from some ships into marine waters.

In amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as proposed in Bill C-15, which is before us for third reading, we would be making important improvements to the enforcement regime in marine waters and ultimately preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds.

In particular, Bill C-15 would allow us to increase the ability to enforce provisions in these two seminal pieces of environmental legislation in Canada's exclusive economic zone. It would enhance the capacity of these two laws to protect our species and our environment and, at the end of the day, to protect us all.

Achieving the sustainability of our environment is why we have worked so hard on environmental legislation in this country. This is why we have led the way on international efforts and are known for that leadership. This is why we need to act now to deal with the ongoing pollution of our waters that threatens many species of seabirds. We would be able to put significant fines in place that would stop the illegal discharge of oily bilge waters from ships, which is threatening natural resources in our coastal waters.

The dumping of oil into water is avoidable. Many ships travel through Canadian waters far from the sight of land. It has not been easy to determine which ships are responsible for the many discharges of oil into marine waters. For this reason, some ship operators who pollute may think they will never get caught.

Furthermore, without laws providing for fines that are proportionate to the environmental cost, some members of the shipping industry may believe it costs less to risk the fine than it does to discharge their oily bilge waters before they arrive in port. We need to stop such practices.

Bill C-15 would increase the maximum fines for such pollution offences so that they are more in keeping with those of the United States.

The result should be that ships that pass through Canadian waters to dump oily bilge waters before proceeding to U.S. waters, where enforcement has been much stricter and fines much higher, would be deterred from dumping illegally into our marine environment.

Bill C-15 would put in place other provisions to ensure valid ships' records and to require equipment to avoid environmental pollution.

We can make sure that some of the worst perpetrators discover that they cannot get away with dumping oily bilge waters off Canadian coasts any longer without suffering consequences for those actions.

Not only does the Government of Canada intend to improve surveillance through satellite technology, the fines available upon passage of Bill C-15 will be a strong deterrent to illegal action.

After careful deliberations over Bill C-15, the Standing Committee on the Environment strongly supported the proposed bill with one amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Standing Committee on the Environment for all the work that they put into this legislation.

We heard my hon. colleague speak of the minimum fines of $300,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on an indictable offence that would be imposed if ships over 5,000 tonnes violate the amended Migratory Birds Convention Act and pollute illegally.

Large ships over 5,000 tonnes should be expected to have modern and effective oil management systems. Shipping, as everyone in the House is aware, is big business, and the non-compliant companies that operate large ships must respect the polluter pays principle and provide the means to reduce or eliminate polluting activities involving their vessels. Those who do not abide by the rules will be penalized, should be penalized and ought to be penalized.

Bill C-15 deserves support in the House. I also urge support for the amendment by the Minister of Environment that the minimum fines for polluting ships over 5,000 tonnes be deposited directly to the environmental damages fund. This amendment will ensure that the proceeds of fines will be directed to the restoration of the damaged environment.

Fines in the case of ships exceeding 5,000 tonnes will go toward cleaning up the problem that was created in the first place. I think we all want fines to be used to reduce environmental damage. I think we want those who pollute our water and kill our birds to have to pay for the crime in ways that will have a direct benefit to our environment.

The option is consistent with the Government of Canada's philosophy of ensuring environmental sustainability, not only through its own funding but through the fines paid by those who threaten that sustainability through pollution activities.

As we can see, the committee's amendment and good work are reinforced with this further refinement, but we can put the fines imposed on floating vessels of more than 5,000 tonnes to work where they are needed. It is good policy work, good legislative work and also good practice.

Members will notice that I am referring to amendments to existing laws. Many of us here worked on these laws and were proud to enter our names in their official support.

This means that we are not creating burdens for the shipping industry and we are not changing course. Quite the opposite. With Bill C-15, we are showing that we believe in what we have on the statute books and in Canadian commitments within international agreements.

The bills shows, nevertheless, that we are ready to improve federal wildlife protection statutes and are willing to act accordingly in the best interests of migratory seabirds and cleaner marine waters. This approach adheres to the goal of protecting and maintaining biodiversity, which in fact supports human existence.

What more can I say? The value of Bill C-15 speaks for itself. We would be putting in place measures that will help achieve a robust environment as essential to a competitive economy and thus to securing Canada's place in the world. In acting today, we are endorsing that vision and giving it strength.

Bill C-15 provides the means to enforce the high standards we have set, standards of which we are very proud, standards that will make us Canadians. We find these standards in our laws. We have committed to them in international agreements. We have committed to ourselves, to our children and to their children that we will conserve biodiversity and protect our natural heritage.

For the reasons I have just recited and for the other reasons that were referred to in the previous speeches given in support of this legislation, I urge all members to support this bill.

[Sable Island, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for our minister, our government and our Prime Minister. He is presently working with our Minister of the Environment and with the Province of Nova Scotia, and a decision will be made shortly.

[University of Prince Edward Island, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share the news that the University of Prince Edward Island has announced that William E. Andrew of Calgary, Alberta will be appointed as the institution's seventh chancellor.

Mr. Andrew, a native of Milton, Prince Edward Island, is the president of Penn West Petroleum Ltd., a leading Canadian energy company. Mr. Andrew has worked with many community endeavours, including the Alberta Children's Hospital and the United Way. He is also involved in the Canadian harness racing industry. He will bring a wealth of experience to this position.

I know that Mr. Andrew's commitment to education and love for Prince Edward Island will inspire him to excel in his new position. Please join me in congratulating William E. Andrew on his appointment as the chancellor to one of Canada's great universities.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the learned member for the presentation. I actually listened all day to the debate and I think there is agreement on a lot of things that have been said today in the House. It is certainly a major issue, it has been a major problem on the Fraser River, and we all hope that it will be resolved.

The biggest disagreement, of course, is on the whole request for a judicial inquiry at this point in time. It is my submission that such an inquiry, as others have stated today, would be lengthy and costly, would pit one group against the other and be very divisive, and at the end of the day I am not sure it would solve anything.

Perhaps I am wrong on that last point, but the timeliness is very important. We have ongoing, and just getting started up, an independent commission chaired by a retired chief justice of the appeal division of the British Columbia Supreme Court, Bryan Williams.

This commission is going to be open, public and transparent and is going to be completed on a very timely basis. It should report within a couple of months and if there are members in the House who are not satisfied, of course they could revisit this whole notion of a judicial inquiry.

Would the learned member, given the fact that the Williams commission is getting up and running, not agree with me that it is the proper approach at this point in time?