18 Responses to “$5 million for 35 days of fishing surveillance”

1. #  Leah Tanner 5:01 PM

   Fishing surveillance seems like it would be a more sensible use for our money than say...a war in Afghanistan.
   (I wonder when we're going to find out who wins that war?)
   Although, back to the subject; $5million for 35 days does seem to be alot of money, isn't there a more econimical way to keep track of what's going on in our waters?
   
   Leah Tanner
   A00025638  

2. #  kelena kelly 11:26 AM

   Yes, it is very true that the navy is short on money and isnt getting new funds but are simply redirected them. As a member of the Canadian naval reserves I hear alot of the rumors but also a lot of what is true and actually happening. This past saturday my naval reserve unit had a meerting with our Commanding Officer who informed us that the East Coast navy is very tight for money. Numerous training activites have been cancelled and perhaps a few more. I was personally affected when I was chosen to sail to boston for a week on one of the 4 reserve ships that were going on a deployment. Due to the budget cutbacks this and all future deployments in this fiscal year have been cancelled for reserves. Also the cutbacks have affect the regular force ships, as in the case of the fisheries patrol for HMCS Halifax. The budget cutbacks are effcting the navy and its sailors as a whole. There has been talk of monitoring the waters using different means but the best way is to have a ship out on the water that can patrol fishiers and other activites. 5million dollars is a large sum but the ships are extermely large and I believe that it is a price we pay to ensure the protection of our waters.  

3. #  AdamHarris 2:00 PM

   I haven't really heard a lot about this issue, but from my peers and in class I can see it's pretty complicated and controversial. It would be interesting to see the results that Naval fishing surveillance has on illegal fishing off our coast. I wonder if the Navy gives out any large fines. If they do, could the money brought in from the fines for illegal fishinghelp pay for these missions? or maybe be increased?  

4. #  Erinn 2:51 PM

   I think that this is a touchy subject and that people vary in opinions of what is going on and what should be done about this, but What I would want to know is, the fishing surveillances are not something that just started, so shouldn’t there be a set account to how often surveillances must be done, and the proper amount of money set aside for each one every year?  

5. #  jeremytibbetts 3:31 PM

   I think that 5 million is alot of money for only 35 days, however I do not know the details. Any military exercise I have been on has never cost that much, but also never lasted that long. I hope that the cost of these missions are worth it.  

6. #  BenClare 5:13 PM

   It is most unfortunate that often cooperating nations can't agree on laws of the sea. I recommend to any interested readers the article in the current issue of the Canadian Geographic called 'Policing the Passage'. The author is telling the story of his 2 week trip aboard a Coast Guard Vessel en-route through the Northwest Passge (or what have recently been termed 'Canadian Internal Waters'). In discussing Canada's lack of policing in northern waters, he mentions the Harper government's proposal to purchase "three new armed icebreakers, estimated to cost about $450 million each." If the five million isn't available, it would be interesting to know where the 1.5 billion dollars in ice breakers is going to come from. Personally, I'd be happy to support these armed monstrosities if their funding is made possible by Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan.
   
   As well, I don't see how foreign 'tresspassers' in Canada's seas should be less intimidated, or less bothered, by being interrogated by a Coast Guard vessel. These smaller (and probably much less environmentally dangerous) boats are vehicles for great amounts of scientific research that is currently lacking funding. How much does size matter when policing Canada's coast?  

7. #  jane 9:21 PM

   5 million is a lot of money; but if that’s what it takes to keep our waters and country safe, then it needs to be done. Maybe the US, who is concerned about our leaky costal security, could chip in to help protect our continent and territorial seas.  

8. #  BenClare 7:08 AM

   Jane,
   In the article I have mentioned above, the author notes that despite Canada's request, the Americans repeatedly won't report to us or offer information regarding their use of Canada's 'Internat Waters'. Thus, I'd doubt if they have any interest in chipping in here. Also, Canada's got much more than $5 million available for a 35 day patrol - it's just being spent in other ways.  

9. #  Martha 8:05 AM

   I would think that other people around the world that would want to make it into our ports with illegal drugs or other things would be taking advantage of this problem and this won't look good for our records. Our ports are some of the main ones used for illegal products to get into North America, you would think that our governement would want to change this instead of not providing any protection at all.  

10. #  katie* 9:18 AM

    I think that if it takes $5million to protect our waters from illeagal activities, then it is worth it. The only way to stop something like that is to let people know that we are going to inforce the laws, if we don't then they think it is okay to do what they do in our waters. Most other countries tht have territorial seas probably protect thier waters. If people know we are going to start protecting our waters, then they will stop coming in them.
    ~kathryn LeBlanc  

11. #  CBEMN 3:36 PM

    Great discussion, everyone!
    Cathy  

12. #  Stephanie 7:35 PM

    I definitely think the government should be pitching in for the patrolling. Or at least come to some agreement as to a split. since obviously the navy is as stretched for money as they can be.
    
    And I have to say I agree with Leah.  

13. #  Josh Blakeney 6:19 AM

    i agree , i think that it is a joke. i wonder what Harper is doing with all that coin. yeah i am sure there is alot of other places money is needed, but every since Harper had been elected , i felt that he ws a suck up to the USA. but by not patroling our waters it hardly seems like he is a suck up to the USA , and he deffinatly does not care about his own counrty. i wonder sometimes if he is on a planet of his own.  

14. #  Unknown 5:09 PM

    I think that the only reason the goverment found the money to send the boat out at all is to save face because the media made the facts public. Without the media, the boat would still be in the harbour, and we would be unprotected. As for the actual amount - well, it is what it is, but I'd rather the boats be out there than not, and I'd much rather money be put to that, than the war in Afganistan.  

15. #  sab.t 7:58 AM

    Im suprised that we dont have enough technology to watch the ocean from land, with ships ready to go if need be.  

16. #  Lyndsay 8:53 AM

    Fishing surveilence is an important issue that should be of more concern to a country that access to three oceans. With all the issues surrounding oceans and the preservation of its resources you would think that the government would be able to find money to put into this task. Whats the point on making laws that are never going to be enforced? Its great that people are aware of the problems but when no one does anything about it, its almost like you are better off not knowing.
    Lyndsay
    A00280888  

17. #  Lyndsay 8:57 AM

    Fishing surveilence is an important issue that should be of more concern to a country that access to three oceans. With all the issues surrounding oceans and the preservation of its resources you would think that the government would be able to find money to put into this task. Whats the point on making laws that are never going to be enforced? Its great that people are aware of the problems but when no one does anything about it, its almost like you are better off not knowing.
    Lyndsay
    A00280888  

18. #  Scott Sawler 9:53 AM

    This needs to be done and will only help Canada in the long run. Think about 25 years from now what are our kids gonna think about how we destroyed the oceans, knew about it, and still did little to nothing to stop it. 5 million dollars is a lot of money to you and me, but on the grand sceme of things its not really that much. Im sure more money is wasted on other things that are not as important.