Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Cummins and Mr. Lunney both raise a very valid point. I have a problem with part of the substance of this motion, and I want to comment on that in just a moment.

We know that industry is part of a broader framework in looking at marine services fees across the country. I've spoken to the person who is chairing that effort. He realizes that, within this broad framework, there will be six or seven areas that need to be addressed, anomalies within that, and this would be one of them.

But it seems odd to me that, as a committee, we would launch out here and make a pronouncement without knowing how this would fit into the overall broad picture. And to suggest that the committee should go ahead and do some sort of study on marine services fees while having already made a decision on what we think part of that answer should be, without knowing all of the information; what the implications of this are, say, on the rest of the country; what the coast guard's position is on this and the rationale that they have for that position, seems very odd and somewhat irresponsible to me. I therefore wouldn't be in a position to support this.

That being said, on the substance of this motion, on number three, for example, maybe somebody could interpret—maybe Mr. Stoffer, whose motion it is—what this means: “Whereas the Marine Service Fees collected by the Canadian Coast Guard on the provision of sealift services to the Eastern Arctic is not consistent with the current exemption...”. What current exemption are we talking about here? I think the motion is calling for an exemption, so what is this “current exemption based on the socio-economic conditions of the North”? And then it goes on. I'm a bit confused by that. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what that means.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Stoffer, do you want to quickly comment, so that we can move this along?

As chair, I have no choice but to put this motion to a vote. I respect everyone's opinion and concerns about it all, but proper procedure has been followed.

Give us a brief explanation, Mr. Stoffer, and then I'm going to call the vote.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Very quickly, and with great respect, in 1997 there was a northern exemption for marine service fees that was never enacted properly. If Mr. Kamp carefully reviews—and you've had two weeks to do this, so I find it astonishing that the Conservatives say they don't understand the situation—and just goes back to 1997 and the coast guard backgrounder, he'll get all the information he needs, sir—which you, by the way, had ample time to do in the last two weeks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much.

Anyway, colleagues, I've listened respectfully to all opinions, so we're going to go to the vote.

Quickly, Nancy, if you don't mind, please.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Just very quickly, to clarify some of the statements, we're not trying to eliminate fees. We're looking for an exemption to the marine fees that apply currently. There is already a backgrounder here from Fisheries and Oceans and it's not being implemented.

The high cost of living is definitely an issue with the people in the north. We do pay more times than once on services for goods going up north, because we have to pay freight on top of absolutely everything that goes up. We feel we're being charged unfairly on top of the real cost of goods already, and this just adds more to the top of the cost of living. All we're asking for is that the exemption be applied as it was introduced in 1997.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you.

Mr. Epp, quickly, please.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you very much.

As a newcomer to this committee and as a temporary substitute, this motion is incoherent to me because of the fact that the whereases are at the wrong place. I don't know whether we want to amend that or not.

Basically, if you read the thing, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 leave you hanging. Always when you say “Whereas”, you conclude by saying, therefore, we recommend this, or we do this. In this particular case, the whereases comes at the end and there's really no conclusion to them.

This is a technical point, but I think the whereases should be one, two, and three, and then there should be the words, “Therefore, the committee recommends that the government not apply”. It's just a technical thing, but it's incoherent in its present form.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

I've heard enough. I'm going to call for the vote. All those in favour of the motion, raise their—

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, members have a right to debate the motion. There's a motion on the floor, and if they have something they want to say, then I have something I'd like to contribute to the debate before the vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

But how long do we entertain interventions, Mr. Lunney? I am willing to hear you, by the way, but what's occurring here is very obvious to me as chair. It's not my first day here and I'm losing my hearing, but go ahead.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

We've only had a few minutes to discuss the issue, Mr. Chair. I just want to make this point to my colleagues, and it is this.

A motion like this, if it were adopted and if it were implemented immediately, might have unintended consequences. You might think you can go in and simply eliminate these costs, but what if you found then that the services that are provided by the coast guard suddenly were diminished in accordance with the reduction in the funding available? That's not outside the realm of possibility, and I think the public would not be served in the manner you're hoping if that were the consequence.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Go ahead, Mr. Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the notice of meeting indicates that a meeting is scheduled for between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. in this room. We received the notice of motion and we had time to familiarize ourselves with it. All the Conservatives are doing, in my opinion, is trying to justify their opposition to the motion.

I have a question: is the vote on the motion scheduled to take place between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.? If so, then I suggest you call the vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I thank you for your point of order, but I'm going to let Mr. Lunney finish, out of respect, and then we're voting, regardless of who else wants to speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I've basically made my point.

We've had a collegial relationship at the table here. Mr. Asselin is an experienced member, and he knows that when you bring forth a motion, members do have a right to discuss the motion and be satisfied that their views have been heard.

I simply wanted to present that issue to you. I don't think the motion is particularly well worded. I think it's not well advised that we would make such a motion, having not actually examined the issue. We haven't heard any witnesses here at the committee, and I'm repeating myself in saying so now.

I can't support the motion as it sits, and I would encourage members to put it off until we've had time to review the issue and make an appropriate decision.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, gentlemen. The meeting is adjourned.