Debates of June 11th, 1996

Oceans Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is about to unilaterally impose on the marine industry user fees for Coast Guard services, notably for navigational aids and icebreaking operations. Clauses 41 and 47 to

52 of Bill C-26 give the fisheries minister the power to impose these user fees.

Several amendments to these clauses have been moved by the Bloc Quebecois, by my colleague the member for Gaspé, who went to a lot of trouble to try to find a way of co-operating with the government. As I was saying, several amendments to these clauses have been tabled for the following purposes: to make the principle of user fees more equitable, to force the minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before imposing or increasing the fees. These changes will prevent the minister from acting unilaterally, without taking public consultation into account, as he did with respect to the user fees that he wants to impose in June 1996.

Public hearings were held by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. All witnesses who appeared before the committee deplored the decision and consultation process of the Coast Guard, in particular the fact that the minister went ahead with the user fees without first making an economic impact assessment of this measure on the marine industry and on industrial sectors relying on shipping.

Moreover, 75 per cent of the witnesses asked the minister to declare a moratorium on the imposition of fees pending the result of impact studies commissioned by the fisheries department for next fall. The witnesses also suggested that the minister co-operate with the marine industry in carrying out these economic impact studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus against the minister's proposal, which was considered unacceptable by concerned parties in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, notably by the Ontario and Quebec governments.

Of course, disregarding all those recommendations and objections, the minister seems to be determined to apply his fees without even thinking of their potentially devastating consequences on employment in the marine industry, which is a highly developed economic sector in Quebec.

Another major problem is the drop in competitiveness of ports in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes compared with American ports. On the one hand, ships passing through the St. Lawrence and the seaway to reach the United States will not pay for Coast Guard services if they do not stop in Canadian ports. That is a serious threat to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.

On the other hand, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not consistently applied. In several instances, in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier among other places, users will pay up to $5 million every year for only one buoy. And finally, the fees the minister intends to apply are only the tip of the iceberg since they cover only navigational aids. Harbour and seaway dredging and icebreaking in the seaway are other targeted services for the imposition of fees.

These other fees might be much higher than those for navigational aids and we have every right to be concerned about the survival and competitiveness of the St. Lawrence harbours, especially the port of Montreal and several ports in the regions.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a couple of words on what it will do to a riding like mine. As you all know, Laurentides is a riding where boating and water sports are very important to the survival of tourism.

There are between 500 and 800 lakes in my riding, so you can well imagine the impact fees on pleasure craft will have on the economy of an area like mine. We have not heard all the details yet, but there is talk of imposing a fee on pedalboats and sailboards. I do not know where they will put the licence plate, but I am sure they will think of something.

There is talk of having rowboats and canoes come under the law, can you imagine what it might do to a tourism industry like the one in my riding?

Imagine the small and medium size businesses that make a living renting this kind of equipment for the season, for the summer; they will have to pay these fees. Will it be on a yearly basis, or every five years? I still do not know how it will work. We might be in for some nasty surprises. Will the fees be phased in? All this to collect a few million dollars to put in the finance minister's coffers. This is an outrage.

Moreover, let us keep in mind how much it will cost to collect these fees. How will we go about finding the owners of all these pedalboats, sailboards, rowboats, canoes? This is practically impossible, unmanageable. In the end, the ordinary taxpayer will have to pay once again. Once again he will have to bear the burden of the federal government's financial problems.

We will oppose that fiercely. Coalitions are being formed right now in my riding and elsewhere to press the government into not adopting such a fee schedule. The Bloc Quebecois will continue its action against this bill in the hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will find another way to fill his coffer. There would be so many other ways.

Let me go on to another issue, waste dumped into the sea. Do you know there is a fixed rate for the right to dump waste in the sea? It means I can have five truckloads of waste, buy a license and dump all of it into the sea with that one license alone. I can throw as much waste as I want. These people are the ones you should go after. We should make them pay the true price for their waste. It is amazing what savings could be made that way and the environment would be better protected.

When I see the decisions being taken in order to collect $14 million and the number of public servants that will take, I am concerned. They will have to create a new division at Fisheries and Oceans. I can assure you the government will not get the co-operation of all the provinces. It is not the provinces nor the municipalities that will be collecting those fees. It will cost a fortune. It will cost more to implement the fee schedule than to leave things the way they are.

I encourage my colleagues to continue the debate on these motions. I will fully support any opposition to charging fees for ships and boats.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to comment on the motions Group No.11, on Bill C-26, a group of motions concerning the schedule of charges. Hearings were held and 75 per cent of the interested parties came to tell the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he should suspend the application of his new fee schedule until general economic impact studies had been carried out.

I am very familiar with the St. Lawrence River region, in particular the lower north shore. I worked for 15 years for Iron Ore in Sept-Îles. When I left the company, in the mid seventies, it had annual exports of 15 to 29 million tonnes of iron ore that were loaded on 300,000 tonne supercargoes.

Of course, the cost of iron ore was not excessively high, it was 1 cent per tonne. However, Iron Ore employed thousands of people through its two entities, the mining company and its subsidiary Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, and in this way it sustained the whole economy of north shore, an economy that was working well.

Let us come back to the measure advocated by the minister. He does not seem to realize what impact a fee increase would have on users on St. Lawrence River. In the port of Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier for example, this would mean $5 million for each buoy.

That is hard to understand. Even though the government wants an exorbitant price for a buoy, I am sure the mining companies, Iron Ore Corp., Wabush Mines and Quebec Cartier Mining in Port-Cartier could all afford hundreds of buoys. But the current price of $5 million a year for installing a buoy they do not need is too high. The big ocean going cargoes all use satellite positioning. They do not need the minister's small buoys that are much more useful for windsurfers than these supercargoes.

That is somewhat reminiscent of the highwaymen of the last century. They would hide behind a bush, wait until someone came by and, on whatever pretext they could think up-La Fontaine was good at doing that in his fables-they would jump on him and rob him. They would relieve him of all his belongings. That is what the government is doing.

You know, this ultimately has an impact. I am sure the mining company, Iron Ore, does not even ship 10 million tonnes a year, while from 1970 to 1975, it shipped almost 20 million tonnes. It employed between 10,000 and 12,000 people in its best years. At the present time, it employs about 2,000. But the others are all taxpayers who do not pay taxes any more, because they no longer have a job.

That is what happened. That explains the $600 billion deficit. The Liberals sometimes remind me of the man who will not feed his cow yet wants it to give more milk. After a while, it does not work any more. You cannot kill the canary and ask it to have chicks. You must think logically and realize that policies such as these are bad for the economy of Quebec in general and the north shore in particular.

However, the minister is going about this in a haphazard manner. He does not have a buoy, and it shows. He is going around, rudderless, and has decided to hike user fees. You know, we already pay taxes in our society. Life is not free in this society. As far as individuals are concerned, the minister can always say they sometimes get sick, receive hospital care, unemployment insurance or welfare. Sometimes, they travel and we open the roads for them.

However, mining or paper companies pay taxes, but do not get sick very often. When they get sick, they shut down. The same goes for mining companies. They cannot receive welfare when things go wrong. They pay taxes to begin with, like all of us, as well as a surtax in accordance with the user pay principle. It say it is nonsense.

There are deep water ports, in Halifax, Vancouver and Victoria for example, where buoys are not required. These users get off lightly, as they use services without paying since they do not have buoys.

I think that $5 million per year, just to have a buoy at the mouth of the bay in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, is excessive. The minister should take notice because this is the kind of thing that happens little by little, insidiously. Before you know it, the number of workers has gone down from 2,000 to 1,500, then from 1,500 to 1,000 and from 1,000 to 300. When the minister finally wakes up, he says that he does not understand, that the people in that region have not been paying taxes. How could they, when they are out of work?

Over time, small things have added up and they are now having a disastrous effect on the regional economy, if not on the whole province. But that, the minister does not care two hoots about. I am still directing my remarks, through the Chair, to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who does not seem the slightest bit perturbed by what I am saying, but this member, whom I salute,

should try again to make the fisheries minister see reason to ensure that adequate regulations are in place.

How competitive will be our ports, as compared to those in the northern U.S. states? Take for instance a transatlantic liner coming from Europe. It goes in the St. Lawrence River estuary, makes its way up the river, bypassing Saint-Lambert, ends up in the Great Lakes and heads straight for Pittsburgh.

It pays nothing, even though it used the channel, the water and the St. Lawrence. It pays for the locks in Saint-Lambert, but it is getting the rest free. On the other hand, the small coastal trade carrier on the North Shore, or on both shores of the St. Lawrence will be hit hard.

We mentioned earlier the carrier crossing the Atlantic and unloading its cargo in Sept-Îles; it costs a fortune, whereas the carrier unloading in Thunder Bay has nothing to pay even though it went 3,700 kilometres further down a waterway maintained by Canada. Sometimes, as far as this upkeep is concerned, one wonders if Canada has not bitten off more than it can chew. If it cannot afford to look after such a large country, why does it not leave a part of it to Quebecers? We could take care of it and manage it, if Canada cannot do it.

I know this is not easy, but we will not get out of the situation by adopting such measures, nor by acting like highwaymen. Companies do talk to each other. They realize that ore is not expensive on the North Shore, but they must pay an additional cost. Moreover, they are being squeezed dry with navigation costs after having invested billions in a region that was not really developed before they came. Once they are grabbed by the throat, fees are raised any which way. They respect their commitments on iron ore tonnage, but as far as using ports and wharves is concerned, the sky is the limit. They are asked $5 million for one buoy. Really, this is nonsense.

Has the government yielded to the pressure of the lobby representing eastern interests? These people from down east, from Halifax and Newfoundland, have a great influence on the government. When military bases are closed in that region, the government gives them $17 million. By comparison, when a base was closed in Quebec, our province only got $1 million. In any case, given their small number here, MPs from the maritimes are particularly effective. Everything generally turns against Quebec. This bill is yet another illustration of that.

Through the Chair, I ask the member for Vancouver Quadra who is listening so carefully to what I have to say, to try to influence his minister and make him realize that, even if Quebec is a distinct society, the waters, rivers, docks and ships are no different. Even if Quebec is a relatively rich province with its iron deposits and other minerals, such as the bauxite found in the Lac Saint-Jean region which is transformed into aluminum ingots, this is no reason to try to choke Quebecers by depriving them of their economic infrastructure, unless it is a current Liberal strategy.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is looking at me and seems surprised that we could think of such things. You know, once we get used to hearing the current Prime Minister, we realize that words do not have the same meaning for him as for the rest of us; we are speaking in good faith. When the Prime Minister talks about a chair, it is not a horizontal seat with four legs. In the Prime Minister's mind, a chair can have two horizontal legs, two vertical legs and a tilted seat. That is a chair or a table for the Prime Minister. Now we have learned not to trust him. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra might find it very funny, but such is the sad reality in Quebec. The Prime Minister makes promises to us, but we learned many moons ago that we have to be cautious and examine what he means because one never wins against him. There is always a meaning nobody had thought of.

I think it is in the interest not only of Quebec but also of the whole of Canada to try to make the Prime Minister understand and reconsider this bill and its fee structure. As suggested by mayors of municipalities and by various other interested parties, before doing something irreparable, we should wait until we at least get impact studies and know what disastrous consequences such a bill could have.

So there is no point hurrying to shoot ourselves in the foot, to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat. Let us proceed slowly and await the results of studies.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak tonight in support of the amendments put forward by the Bloc, by my colleague from Gaspé.

I am also glad to speak against this ridiculous attempt by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the government to charge fees for navigational aid services, whether it is for dredging or deicing the St. Lawrence River, without waiting for the results of economic impact studies.

I appeal to your common sense. The St. Lawrence River in the province of Quebec is quite unique. In any other country, in France or anywhere else, such a huge river would be called a sea. From Godbout to Matane, for example, this river is 26 miles wide, that is close to 50 kilometres. The waters of the St. Lawrence River are inland waters in Quebec. If that river had not represented something like a huge lung for Quebec, Canada's history would have been quite different.

Indeed, if British colonial forces had not felt the need to control this waterway leading inland, they would have left the decision making and the development of our people in the hands of the Canadiens, who became known as French Canadians and are now

called Quebecers. The St. Lawrence River is an inland waterway of a different type, a type which reflects what Quebec is.

But now, without consulting the provinces, without consulting Quebec, without consulting users and without consulting those who will be affected by this decision, whose impact could be quite dramatic, the minister has decided to go ahead and give himself the power to set the fees he finds appropriate without considering the effects it could have.

This is a major decision. It reflects a lack of interest for what Quebec is. It reflects a lack of concern for the extremely important economic role the St. Lawrence River could play in terms of inland navigation and shipping. There are a large number of businesses in my riding of Mercier, in Montreal, and the bigs ones that are still around rely on a combination of rail and water transport for their operations.

They are and will continue to be affected, as will the port cities located all along the St. Lawrence River.

Because of this government decision, this very important not only economic but social and even cultural fabric of the province of Quebec is being threatened.

The bill and all the literature on it give us food for thought. A few years ago, it was decided and rightly so that polluters must pay, whatever the field. That is when the polluter pays principle became popular. From what I read about the St. Lawrence River, something quite different is happening. Now it is the users who must pay. But should they be the ones to pay? Each case should be reviewed in terms of economic impact, social responsibilities and good citizenship.

What is important is that the St. Lawrence River can continue to play its role. If, contrary to what we would be inclined to think, the government does care about the economic role of the St. Lawrence River, how can it risk jeopardizing the economic mission of its ports? How can it penalize in this way Quebec and, with the Great Lakes, Ontario, before the results of the impact studies are out?

If, at least, businesses or institutions had shown some concern or even resistance, but this is not the case, because they know how important this is for Quebec. But what will happen when those users will be asked to pay for the impacts of winter, the ice removal and the dredging required as a result of erosion and other natural events? The users in a particular context or situation will have to pay.

I also urge and pray the member for Vancouver Quadra and the other member from British Columbia whose riding I do not remember to go on an excursion on the St. Lawrence River, to try to understand why this issue goes well beyond the economic one that I just described with some emotion; it is important, but it goes well beyond that because we feel deprived of the control over this major waterway which is a great, magnificent and natural feature and which represents a unique asset, one that can also turn to our disadvantage because the fees, the rates that will be imposed could put in jeopardy its utilization for recreational, tourist and economic purposes.

We could be deprived of the full development stemming from the existence of this outstanding waterway, the St. Lawrence River, because the minister, in a totally arbitrary manner, empowers himself to impose a rate structure that could be to our disadvantage economically and favour, for instance, the harbours of northern United States.

As members, we will do everything that is feasible to prevent the government from ramming through this legislation which is appalling, unfair and which shows its complete insensitivity regarding the significance of the St. Lawrence for Quebec.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise also to express my opposition to the government's plan to offer Coast Guard services on a user fee basis. According to our information, this is not the first time the government tried to invade this field in order to raise new funds for the national treasury. We must examine carefully the content as well as the form of this proposal.

This time, the government's objective, through the Coast Guard, is to take in close to $160 million by year 2000 from users, starting, in 1996, with an amount of $20 million only for navigation aids, such as buoys and lighthouses that guide ships on the St. Lawrence River. The issues of icebreaking and dredging of the St. Lawrence River and approaches to ports are being determined. According to our information, the icebreaking plan will take form next fall.

As part of its strategy, the government asked a private firm, IBI, to study this question. As member of Parliament and associate member of the committee, I had the honour to take part in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I am also very pleased to speak as critic for regional development. Many witnesses said that the IBI study was a hollow sham. Yet, the study was quite voluminous, but, according to a witness, it was not worth the paper on which it was printed. This gives you an idea of the quality of the work done because it seems that it was all a bogus consultation process.

Afterwards, the government had to yield to the pressure exerted by the official opposition and call a meeting of the fisheries and oceans committee which, in turn, invited witnesses to appear before it in order to know the opinion of those we could call victims

of this government operation. Again, this was a bogus consultation process.

Many witnesses, and important ones at that, expressed their views. On the one hand, we saw the arrogance of the Coast Guard commissioner, Mr. Thomas, very self-confident, very proud to talk about the IBI study, and on the other, there was the disappointment, concern and even the anger of users who will have to foot the bill without getting any real explanation of what was going on.

It must be said that over the next three years, people who play a very important economic role, as I will explain later, will have to pay $160 million without any impact study. Some witnesses talked about the devastating effects of that policy, for example, the SODES, which is an association of many highly credible maritime stakeholders in Quebec. There is no description of the services provided to users by the Coast Guard, nonetheless the user pay principle will be applied.

They did not feel the need to demonstrate rationally, as logically as possible, as convincingly as possible, the services actually rendered to these users they want to see pay in future. As for conviction or the moral aspect of the matter are concerned, the process is extremely arbitrary, as well as extremely authoritarian, somewhat typical of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, that is for sure.

As well, there has been no demonstration of any effort whatsoever of rationalization of Coast Guard operations, because if the Coast Guard-which, if memory serves, costs $860 million and change yearly-had successfully rationalized its operations, as the users suggest, those who have seen it in operation just about everywhere in Canada, there would be less money to collect and less reason to penalize users of these undefined Coast Guard services. This is extremely shocking. It is obvious to people that the Coast Guard has not cleaned up its own act before going and setting new user fees.

All of this gives rise to what I would term some disturbing facts. For example, the problem comes from Ottawa. Ottawa needs money and has decided to find a new way to intervene to meet this need. For its purposes, it has divided the country into three major regions.

So, while the problem is exactly the same from coast to coast, the country is divided into three parts: the west, the centre-that is, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence-and the maritimes. As it happens, Quebec is the one that gets it in the neck, because it will end up paying, with the Great Lakes, nearly 48 per cent of the $20 million at issue this year.

I have heard federalists say, for your information, that, if there is a country, there is a country. Unless Ottawa decides simply to divide up the country, to acknowledge in some way that there are differences, big ones, we are obliged to talk sovereignty. There are therefore federalists who are legitimately upset, and, we hope, shaken by the federal government's move to divide up the country into the three regions I just mentioned.

What is more, according to user estimates, the government is raising costs, plus what this policy will mean eventually, by a dollar a tonne. The Coast Guard's response to this argument is that it is not a dollar a tonne, but ten cents a tonne. This is the kind of debate that can generate a lot of anxiety since some will think that 10 cents is important, but a dollar is even more so in a field where competition is exceedingly high. According to users, this will double the cost of maritime transportation operations in the St. Lawrence, if ever the contention of users is confirmed, that is, a $1 increase.

So they caved in to the eastern and western lobbies, but especially the eastern lobby, that is, the maritimes, and decided on a fee structure that seems to be clearly in favour of Halifax as opposed to one of its competitor ports called Montreal. The port of Halifax is a port of call for big container ships whereas the port of Montreal is an unloading port. It seems that the decision to apply user fees based on the tonnage of transhipped or unloaded cargo favours Halifax, while the decision to impose user fees based on the size of vessels would have favoured neither of these two ports.

This is a rather sneaky way to favour one port over another one when both are competing against one another.

There is a disturbing fact which gives a very concrete idea of what to expect: For navigational aids, a single 25,000 tonne vessel will pay $112,000 per year. A vessel of 25,000 tonnes, $112,000 per year. Not only that, but policies are also being designed which will cost far more, in particular with respect to icebreaking operations. This gives us some idea of the scope of the problem we will soon be facing.

One wonders if this is not an effort to severely reduce the competitiveness of the ports on the St. Lawrence compared with those ports of the maritime provinces, of the east coast of the U.S., even of the whole Mississippi valley. St. Lawrence harbours are in direct competition with those harbours and if shipowners decide it is too expensive to sail through the St. Lawrence, the danger for not only the Quebec economy, but also central Canada, is that they will have missed the boat.

Aluminum plants, the whole pulp and paper industry, the oil industry, the mining industry might then be in jeopardy, together with tens of thousands of jobs related to all these sectors.

This is a major issue and the official opposition is asking for a one-year moratorium. One wonders if, in a sovereign Quebec, it

would even occur to the leaders to come up with such a scheme to hurt the economy instead of helping it develop.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, before we hear the member for Châteauguay, I would like to remind you that we are studying group 11, that is Motions Nos 67, 68 and 70.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate at report stage on Bill C-26, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada. This bill proposes that a tariff be unilaterally established for all services offered by the Coast Guard to the marine industry, including ice breaking and aids to navigation. It gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans all the powers he needs to collect the set fees.

The Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of my colleague, the member for Gaspé, presented a series of 57 amendments in order to make the fees more equitable and to bring the minister to consult the industry and the provinces before implementing or increasing any fees.

During public hearings, all stakeholders condemned the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard was planning to collect fees without any previous consultations. They asked the minister for a moratorium until the results of impact studies on the marine industry and industrial sectors relying on marine transportation are known.

Given the need for governments to rationalize their expenditures one can only agree with the general principle of user fees set on a base rate. However, the fee charged the service user must be proportional to actual use. Otherwise the fee schedule could be a life and death issue for a number of companies. In other words, it would be another policy based on a double standard.

While ships will have to pay more in the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, would be exempted from paying for some services provided by the Coast Guard. And yet this port uses icebreakers more than any other, and is getting generous support from the Coast Guard. A policy with a double standard.

This policy appears to be just another part of Plan B against Quebec and its economic hub, Montreal. We are forced to wonder if the federal government is trying to starve out the Quebec economy in order to cool its demands for independence. That would, however, indicate a serious lack of knowledge of Quebec. Such an offensive would only reinforce our sovereignist intentions.

Quebec and Montreal cannot help but be negatively affected by this bill.

In support of this statement, I have an April 25 press release from the office of Quebec's ministre d'État à la métropole. The minister is concerned about the economic impact on the Montreal region, and the Canadian Coast Guard's planned fees.

If I may, I would like to make a few points about this. On April 25, Serge Ménard, the Quebec minister responsible for Montreal, along with Mrs. Véra Danyluk, chairperson of the executive committee of the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal and of the executive committee of the Montreal Urban Community, and Mr. Patrice Simard, President of the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce, all people very familiar with this matter, issued a press release. The salient points were as follows: they regretted the lack of an economic impact study; they called for a moratorium on this bill; they were amazed at the lack of any rationalization measures on Coast Guard operations. These are the points they made in their release. There was also condemnation of the hit or miss way the matter was being handled, and they also stated that the burden was assessed at that time at 48 per cent for mid-Canada (the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes), 30 per cent for the east, and 22 per cent for the west.

But the main part of their press release dealt with the importance of its metropolis for Quebec. This is what it said: "Every year, the port of Montreal handles 20 million tons of cargo and 726,000 containers transit through its facilities. This activity generates 14,000 direct and indirect jobs and revenues of $1.2 billion annually. Many Quebec industries depend on this mode of supply. Furthermore, the port of Montreal must support strong competition from American east coast ports. Fifty per cent of the port of Montreal's container traffic comes from industrialized regions of the United States, namely the Midwest, New York state and New England."

"Since 60 per cent of the freight passing through the port of Montreal is shipped by railway to various continental destinations, the profitability of the railway network of the metropolis would also be affected by the tariff project. The Canadian government's proposed fee structure threatens the competitiveness of the port of Montreal on the American market, as well as the transportation and supply needs of Canadian industries", concluded Minister Ménard.

Again, this bill deals with all kinds of things, but brings no solution. Most of all, it annoys everyone. Let us consider motions in Groups Nos. 11, 8 and 9 dealing with recreational crafts and emergency situations. There was an emergency situation in my riding in January, when flood waters affected 1,200 people and cost $3 million in Châteauguay. The problem was mainly due to the fact that the Coast Guard Rovercraft could not be used at the time because it was being repaired.

When we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the House, he told us that the rescue services on tributaries of the St. Lawrence and on the other rivers in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice breaking services on these tributaries at the request of the Quebec minister. He simply said the tributaries were a provincial responsibility.

In this bill, with the intention to regulate all types of boats, whether rowboats or pedal boats, on rivers or streams, I wonder what the Coast Guard has to do in this area.

On the whole, this about summarizes the bill. It affects nothing and everything. In my opinion, this bill is another bill in the style of the government. It intervenes everywhere and resolves absolutely nothing. Therefore, we simply have to vote against this bill.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see in the gallery several young people who have come here to see how we debate legislation in the House of Commons. They must be just as scandalized as I am to see that there is only one Liberal member and one Reform member present. I think it is time to ask for a quorum count so we can have a normal debate according to the rules.

I ask that a quorum count be held, Mr. Speaker

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see 20 members present. Resuming debate.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this group of motions, Group No. 11, concerning- The Liberals were not here a few moments ago and now they will not stop talking. They are not any more useful to us now than they were then.

Motion No. 70 says that the Coast Guard should provide its services in the most cost effective manner possible and, more importantly, that people in the industry should be consulted about the services for which they are paying. It is an interesting motion. To assess its relevance, it may be necessary to go back to the substance of this bill.

We are talking about user fees on the St. Lawrence Seaway, but most of all we are talking about conditions that will make this seaway an important economic asset for Quebec and for Canada.

We must not forget that there are several ports along the St. Lawrence River. Some are very large, others are smaller, but they are always important to the region where they are located, whether it be in Sept-Îles, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Cacouna, Rimouski or Matane. These are all places where ports play an important role.

We are witnessing what I would call an attack on Quebec by the federal government through the imposition of fees. Let us not forget this is happening at the same time as the releasing of the ports. On one hand, the government paints an interesting picture for the future by decentralizing port management, but, on the other hand, it takes measures that will make ports on the St. Lawrence Seaway no longer competitive and no longer attractive to businesses.

I think there is a very important message being sent to the present government, this message being that people who are behind Quebec's demands are not what the Liberals would call separatists, but people from the aluminum industry, the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry, people from all these job creating industries that are good for the economy. The current government should take that into consideration. These people are all members of the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent. We are talking here about well known firms such as Daishowa and Alumax; in my area, Gaspesia, in Chandler; and F.R. Soucy, in Rivière-du-Loup. These are all businesses that will have to make major economic decisions for the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. When we tell them about the possibility of user fees becoming much higher, they may decide to go elsewhere, to expand their facilities less. We then see clearly the direct link that exists between regional development and the user fee policy.

Why should this kind of fee structure be adopted today? Did we make all the efforts necessary to find another solution? I myself have a proposal for the government that would replace its steamroller approach. As Raymond Giroux, an editorialist at Le Soleil , wrote: ``The administrative machinery already acts as though Canada was nothing more than a secondary residence for its 7 million francophones. Like air traffic control, the issue of ports is handled by the offices of deputy ministers, where the true power resides, in keeping with the Liberal tradition''.

Could the minister not get out of his deputy minister's office, go out there and ask the people in the industry to propose solutions? These people are ready to propose solutions. They have already said they were willing to accept a new fee structure and, after a reasonable time, to adhere to the user-pay principle. It is not a matter of making Quebec pay for the services provided in the maritimes and Newfoundland. Rather, we must review all the solutions, not only raising fees but also looking at the way services are provided in the region.

The people directly involved in maritime shipping have interesting solutions to propose. Instead of raising fees, they would take measures to significantly reduce operating costs. As is well known, the coast guard sometimes behaves as it did in more prosperous times. For example, since its home port has long been outside Quebec, the icebreakers operating in the gulf must go back to their home port in the maritimes just to fill up on fuel. Is this still an

effective way to operate? Would it be possible to save money on this? Should we not review all of the coast guard's operations? I think there is room for self-examination here, but this has been somewhat neglected.

From that point of view, Motion No. 70 is interesting and I think the government would do well to redo its homework, get back to its users and seek proposals so that they can agree from the start on reduction targets that make sense, targets susceptible of generating a consensus. On this sound basis of an agreement on the targets to be met, we could then think about how to go about meeting these targets.

This would constitute a much more worthwhile solution than the one consisting in using a steam roller as the minister is doing right now.

This is a time of year when many of the costs associated with ice during the winter months are no longer incurred. Why would the minister not take a month or two during the summer to look into this, review the matter and find solutions that could meet the approval of all concerned? He could come back to the House with much more interesting answers, answers which could have been arrived at through parliamentary committees, by consensus, answers which could satisfy everybody, transparent answers.

At the moment, a strong impression is being created that this is part of an overall strategy to have Quebec lose its competitive edge. Certain operations lead us to believe that the government is holding a "garage sale", where Quebec's competitive advantages are being sold off, and the St. Lawrence is one of them.

It is also important to ensure that there is solidarity between users all along the river. It must be realized that, when a boat goes down or up the river, it can stop at various ports.

There some major ports which have the equipment necessary to load a ship. There are also several wharfs along the river where ships can take on cargo. For example, ships can take on wood, powdered milk and peat moss, to name but a few, in Cacouna's port, in order to make this stop cost effective, recover their costs and make a profit.

However, if a decision systematically puts industries which settle eventually in the region at a competitive disadvantage and if, indeed, there is a reduction in the use of ports, the whole development of Quebec will suffer, because all ports can be affected by these decisions. Therefore, before making any decision, the government would do well to ensure that there will be no surprises later on.

Public hearings could have been held which would have made it possible to take the public opinion into account. We are told that 75 per cent of stakeholders have asked for a moratorium. Should not the government listen to these people, consider the advantages of this moratorium, give itself time to look for other alternatives and ensure that the business plan which would result would suit all users and not only those who want to maintain services without questioning their relevance?

That is why I think Motion No. 70 deserves to be supported. I would like members, especially those whose riding is affected by this situation, to consider their vote carefully and think about their constituents' interests before they simply support a government position.

True, the government must reduce its operating costs. It needs to raise its cash inflow, but it must do so with the knowledge that it will get a quality service at a minimal cost. It must not simply raise the prices since, by doing that, it does not apply the basic principle that it advocates, that is, sound management. For all these reasons, I ask the government to vote in favour of Motion No. 70.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member's time is up.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the consent of the House to let me speak a few minutes more.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to give the member a few more minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House for realizing the importance of the issue and allowing us to debate it a little longer.

I want to emphasise a point I mentioned but did not elaborate enough on because of time constraints. Stakeholders asking for a moratorium as an opportunity for Quebec to suggest other solutions are not those we traditionally identify as sovereignists in Quebec. They are industrial stakeholders, people who make our economy work. They are corporations like Iron Ore, Alumax, Daishowa. They are all major economic stakeholders, people who have made their mark in Quebec's economy and have made investments that are growing.

Take an investment like Alumax for example. We gambled on its profitability. When it was first established in Quebec, that corporation had some strategic information whereby it knew that it would have to pay so much for transportation.

Today, it sees the rules being changed. We are telling these people very clearly and ruthlessly that, from now on, the rules will no longer be the same, that we have decided to increase the fees. These people know the St. Lawrence and the industry, they know what the impact of the government's decisions will be, and they also know what the operating costs are for these types of services. They agree to do their share. I would compare that to my house and

say I agree to pay the heating but if the tenant keeps the thermostat at 30 or 35 degrees Celsius, I am paying a lot for nothing.

Should it not be possible to start by finding a more economical way of managing? This is what those concerned are asking: they want the coast guard to provide its services in a more effective way.

Is the situation so urgent that the government must operate like a steamroller, and listen only to its senior public servants and not to stakeholders? I do not think so. There is time in the summer months ahead. It would be possible to arrive at a much more consensual solution that might please stakeholders.

I would like to draw your attention to an article published in the newspaper Les Affaires , on Saturday, February 10, 1996. The article is entitled The fees proposed by the coast guard primarily affect St. Lawrence users'' and contains a significant comment. It says:The recovery policy of the Canadian coast guard, which comes under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is in addition to the ports marketing policy proposed by Transport Canada''.

As you know, yesterday the transport minister tabled the Canada Marine Act. This is a very pompous title for an act. One would expect a general policy on the whole issue of marine transportation. Unfortunately, we do not find what we would expect, given the title of the legislation. Rather, this is an act dealing with the relinquishment of ports, which will have a major impact on how the river will be managed over the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years.

Let us see what will happen. On the one hand, the Department of Transport says: "We will give very large harbours a freer hand; they will be able to operate in a more independent way and as such compete with each other and arrive at interesting results". But, on the other hand, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will increase fees to be charged at harbours along the St. Lawrence. But that is kept under wraps. As a result, the harbours in the maritimes will become much more competitive.

So, what is given with one hand is taken away with the other by changing the rules and charging unfair fees to harbour authorities in Quebec.

So what we are facing 5, 10 or 15 years down the road is a double challenge. I was talking about large harbours that will have complete autonomy, but what about regional harbours? For example, the harbour in Cacouna, which, according to the Department of Transport, is a profitable harbour. With the level of traffic in and out of the port we have right now, the port is efficient and viable. The local people were told: "You should take this in charge". A corporation made up of very dynamic people, called the Corporation de développement du port de Cacouna and chaired by the chief executive officer of F.F. Soucy, a paper mill in Rivière-du-Loup, undertook to examine this opportunity and said: "It would be an interesting proposition, but first, we should check the condition the infrastructure is in and see what we can do with it".

And all of a sudden this issue of fees comes up. An organization not as well informed as this one could have been taken for quite a ride, but the chief executive officer of the paper mill immediately realized the consequences this could have on this undertaking. He has been experimenting for a few years, and still does today, with ways to ferry wood from there.

Raising the fees will increase the ship rental costs and, ultimately, this kind of wood transportation will be made less viable.

Thus, because of those fees, an infrastructure that could be rather interesting for the region will be lost. It comes as quite a surprise that the government does not have a more comprehensive approach to this sector. One of the major causes of that may be that the bill was apparently prepared on the sly, that a firm position was taken without even consulting the stakeholders. Could it be because a new minister was appointed in the meantime? But is the minister just acting like the spokesperson of senior civil servants instead of setting the agenda? I do not know if this explains this situation, but the results are there.

The proposed fees for coast guard services will mainly penalize the users of the St. Lawrence River, who see this as a concession to the Halifax lobby. This is not new in Canada. There are many examples of this in the past.

When Canada was founded, Gaspé could have become our official port of entry. Its natural harbour is possibly the most beautiful in Canada and boats could have gotten there without any problem. No dredging or anything else would have been necessary.

If Gaspé had been chosen, the transcontinental railway could have started there and today the economic situation of the Gaspé peninsula would be quite different. The John A. Macdonald government deliberately chose to develop Canada from east to west, a decision which was very harmful to the province of Quebec.

Today, we see the same thing happening with these new fees. The government has decided to haul the carpet out from under the feet of Quebec users. You could say: Here goes another one of those blasted separatists, who is going to tell us that Quebec is hurting within Canada and that there is no other solution. He always says the same thing.

The problem the Liberal government is facing today is that the people who are demanding changes, who want a moratorium, who want the Coast Guard to clean up its act are not known for being sovereignists.

In this regard, let me quote Raymond Giroux, who says in his editorial comment: "Until now, the major industrial players-namely Iron Ore, Alumax and Daishowa-were scared stiff of being accused of acting in connivance with sovereignist politicians." The senior executives of Canada Steamship Lines, property that the minister Paul Martin holds in trust and which is part of the coalition, the SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, are also mentioned.

These people who are mentioned, who are not identified as sovereignists and who were not particularly courting the yes side last fall, all agree that the federal government's proposal is not fair and that it will prevent Quebec from sustaining adequately competition. They all ask the government of Canada to go back and do its homework all over again, to look again at the way the consultations were held, to give consideration to the advice given by the industrial players and then-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleague, I believe the consent of the House was for a few minutes only and that we are now exceeding them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I had the consent of the House to extend my time, and since no specific time limit was imposed, I ask if I may conclude.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will give one minute to the member to do so.

[An hon. member]

Is it one American minute, Mr. Speaker,?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about motion No. 70. This motion states that the coast guard be required to provide services more efficiently. We support this motion because we believe there is some cleaning up to do in the coast guard.

Second, we are asking to allow the people in the marine industry to have their say in the services for which they will have to pay. I believe this would be a good solution in order to offer a better service at a lower cost. Let us respect the voice of the marine industry people who really know about the situation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I made a speech during the debate on Bill C-27, and you were in the chair. I had the opportunity to thank the Minister of Justice for presenting a bill aimed at the protection of women and children. While the bill does not go far enough, it is nonetheless a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, today, I will not congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for what he intends to do with the bill we are studying.

On the trade scene, it seems that the present government set a course that it is following without any deviation and whose objective is to penalize Quebec, to weaken it economically.

Just think about the research and development policy which the Tokamak project illustrates very well, think about the GST, the helicopter contract, the fisheries, the agriculture, the raw milk cheese. Each and every time, Quebec is penalized. It is as though the government had deliberately made the decision to impoverish Quebec and to put it on its knees.

Every time the government makes a decision that goes against Quebec's interests, the Bloc denounces it. That is what we have done in the last few months with the maritime services fee structure. I take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Gaspé for the energy and the expertise he is showing in this debate.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to Bill C-26? After hearing several of my colleagues I think that you probably begin to understand, but I will explain it again for those who may not have understood as well as you and for those who are watching us on television. Why should Bill C-26 be rejected?

These reasons are stated in the dissenting opinion released by the official opposition as an appendix to the report of the fisheries and oceans committee, a committee that heard witnesses, 75 per cent of whom agreed with the Bloc's dissenting opinion.

I will review the most important elements. First of all, the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee asked for a one-year moratorium to allow the government to conduct comprehensive and independent economic impact studies in co-operation with the industry.

Even though this recommendation was perfectly reasonable, the government chose to ignore it completely. That is why I and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are taking an active part in this debate today. Why will the minister not budge? It seems that it is because of budgetary requirements imposed by the Minister of Finance that must be respected, regardless of the resulting inequities.

We can only condemn this reaction by the minister. He had a golden opportunity to work with the people directly affected by the new policy, who were glad to contribute to the cost of the services they receive, but who were simply asking the minister to take a serious look at the impacts the new policy would have on the industry. Forget it. Once again, we were not listened to. I hope they pay the price later on.

The second reason is that by establishing three different areas, the Laurentian area, including the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, the West and the East, with rules having different impacts for each area, the government is penalizing, that is right, you guessed it, the St. Lawrence.

The third reason is that, as part of the second round of budgetary measures announced, the government had to rationalize the cost of the Coast Guard. But, according to the witnesses heard, the government has simply not done its homework. We therefore find ourselves in the situation where, instead of rationalizing its staff, the government is imposing tariffs on the industry and thus jeopardizing not only the industry but the jobs that depend on it. Is this good management? It makes no sense at all.

The question is would the government have reacted so hastily in another situation where the economic interests of a region other than Quebec were at stake? I think not.

One final reason the Bloc Quebecois is rejecting Bill C-26 is that the government has not given users a chance to give input on the relevance and effectiveness of services for which they will have to pay, and, subsequent to that, to comment on the method used to charge for these services. In short, the government has behaved like a dictator, with complete disregard for the economic interests of the industry and of the people affected by its decisions.

This is unacceptable. As the member for Québec, I would like to make the House aware of the importance of the marine industry for the economic life of my riding, and of the negative impact the implementation of Bill C-29 will have on it. First, some statistics: the Quebec City harbour, in my riding, accounts for 6,450 full time jobs, 123 businesses dependant on the marine industry, and $352 million in economic spinoffs. This is the reason why I am getting involved in this matter.

Quebec City harbour, in my riding, will be penalized by the new fees levied by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Several leading figures in the marine sector mentioned this to me and asked me to rise today in the House and defend the economic interests of my riding.

This bill jeopardizes hundreds of jobs. As a result of this bill, the cost of sailing through the St. Lawrence will rise significantly.

Mr. Ross Gaudreault, the CEO of Quebec City harbour, believes that the fees could result in a cost increase of 80 cents a tonne for shippers. He fears that this increase will drive exporters to chose alternate harbours either on the eastern or western United States. This is the reason why we are worried.

Mr. Gaudreault is not the only one to fear such a possibility. The Quebec Minister of Transport, the mayors of Quebec City and Charlesbourg, the St. Lawrence Maritime Chamber, the Ship Operators' Association, the Forest Industry Association and business leaders have all reacted negatively to the minister's plan. These are intelligent people who are able to analyze the kind of project that is proposed and to say it will be a disaster for the whole economic and marine life in the St. Lawrence River.

This bill is unfair for Québec and it is unfair for industry. It is unfair for the people of my county and for the people of other ports along the St. Lawrence River. It is unfair because it fails to take into account the economic reality of the region. It is a bill based on the division of Canada because of the inequality within the fee system. This measure puts the competitiveness of St.Lawrence River harbours at risk.

I hope the government will finally listen to the stakeholders, impose a moratorium before it decides on the new fee system and see what this measure puts at risk. Why push the adoption of bill when there will no ice this summer. As my colleague said, why not wait until fall to have time to shed some light on this bill?

I do not congratulate the minister of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is too bad. I would have liked to congratulate him this evening. I like to be generous when I speak in the House and I like to say it when people do something good. But I think their ears are blocked and they cannot hear the Bloc members' propositions.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec, who made an excellent speech, took away from me many regional arguments regarding the coast guard.

However, since this is an extremely important problem not only for the Quebec City harbour, but also for the South Shore of Quebec City, I only have to mention what this will imply in terms of additional fees to Ultramar, which is a Quebec refinery and which needs the coast guard services not only for de-icing, but also for dredging activities. Ultramar accounts for 25 per cent of transportation services for the port activities in general in the Quebec region.

Before talking about the specific issues and the impact, I asked myself one first question about Bill C-26, which formalizes the transfer of the coast guard and Transport Canada to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I was naive enough to ask myself whether or not this kind of transfer was done in order to improve things. There is a need to assess certain criteria to determine the effectiveness of the structure responsible for providing the new service. Did this structure accomplish wonderful things so that it can be entrusted with greater responsibilities?

As far as Fisheries and Oceans is concerned, let us take the example of the cod. What happened to the cod stocks? We could even talk about a real disaster. The cod suddenly disappeared. We could also talk about the reduced quotas for several other species. A quarrel is under way in Acadia regarding crabs and lobsters. This government also restricted access to unemployment insurance. Regions like the Gaspé, Acadia and the maritimes essentially live off fishery resources. If the people in those regions are asked if they think Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been an effective department, they all agree that the opposite is true.

I am a sovereignist; I am an opposition critic who likes to criticize. In the incident involving a hovercraft under repair that occurred in Châteauguay earlier this year, I must say that the coast guard was rather effective. They now want to transfer this service to the minister of Fisheries and Oceans so he can come barging in to put some order into this. To do so, the minister and his officials had the brilliant idea of dividing the country into three regions: the Atlantic, the Central-Laurentian region, and the West.

Distribution must be fair. How can we in Quebec have confidence in this? The Sir Wilfrid Laurier , an icebreaker, also played a major role in the icebreaking operations on the river. About three weeks ago, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier sailed off for a long trip all the way to the west coast. Services are being phased out and hundreds of coast guard related jobs are being cut. Just recently, I heard of one hundred more of these jobs being cut in Quebec City.

That is incredible. They say streamlining is required because the deficit is high, and so is the debt. We agree that streamlining is necessary in some cases, but that is all the minister is doing. Where tariffs did not exist, he imposes tariffs. And this is just the beginning, $20 million just for this year and just for navigation aids. That is $20 million just for buoys. Then, at the next stage, involving icebreakers, similar cuts will be made. This is a five year plan. There one year where we are told that it will progressively add up to approximately $100 million.

Quebec alone will bear 50 per cent of the cuts. I think about the icebreakers and I laugh. The service is still pretty good, for the time being, but there is nevertheless some nonsense that has to be brought to light. For example, half the icebreakers operate between Halifax and Gaspé. They are based in Halifax and in the other harbour. But it is a well known fact that there is no ice in those parts. How bizarre. There are some abominable things happening.

And they want to cut the number of icebreakers. Some winters, the hon. member for Richelieu will recall as I do-he will speak later and I would not want to steal all his material-having to wait four or five days for an icebreaker to come to the rescue and open up the seaway. The seaway is not for the exclusive use of Quebecers. We all know what it is used for and has been used for until now, and that is for freight shipping to the Great Lakes. It is also serving Ontario.

This is a shortsighted government policy which will affect Ontario, but mostly Quebec. Look at the figures. We had a little meeting, organized by our critic, with a senior public servant who gave us a nice chart. It shows that the objective of $20 million for the first phase is divided as follows: $5.8 million for the Atlantic; $4.5 million for the West; and, for the central region-that is us-, $9.7 million only for the first phase of the policy on navigation aids services.

This is the same proportion that will be allocated to us for the icebreakers, again in the first phase. We say: "Enough is enough". Some projects are being taken away from Quebec, and the backbone of our economic development, the St. Lawrence, is being targeted, first by reducing services and, second, by imposing fees.

What is the real motive? Is it because the seaway is in bad shape, because it would cost a lot to modernize it, because the government thinks it might be better to abandon it and let marine traffic go to the eastern United States? If such is the vision of those who currently manage the country and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we must condemn it and this is what we do. This is unbelievable.

We cannot accept a reduction of services and, at the same time, a fee increase. If this were a private business, such an approach would lead directly to bankruptcy. Those who provide advice to the minister are going to put him in a terrible situation. Why should Quebec should remain silent and be accommodating?

The hon. member for Richelieu was absolutely right when he said it was a shame to see so few members in the House during a debate as important as this one. There is only one member from the other side. We are not supposed to say things like that. We cannot insist too much. We cannot talk about those who are absent, but there is only one member from the other side. I congratulate him for being here and for understanding the importance of this issue for his constituents.

Through our active participation in this debate, we, Bloc members, want to stress the importance of a bill which will have a destabilizing effect on our economy. We have the right to defend our economy and we will do so.

[An hon. member]

Where are the Quebec Liberal members?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on an issue so important for Quebec and the Laurentides-Québec area.

I am honoured to speak in the House after the prestigious performances of the hon. members for Trois-Rivières, for Lévis, for Québec, for Rimouski, and for Châteauguay, whom I wished to quote earlier because I intended to use the document he introduced

in the House, concerning this bill. I think he read a few paragraphs and I will insist on using the same document later on to support his argument which was so pertinent and which he presented in such an eloquent and elegant way.

As regards this bill and above all the group of motions we are studying, Group No. 11, the Liberal Party is proposing amendments which will change neither the content nor the intent of the law. The member opposite who has just arrived, the hon. member from New Brunswick, is said to take an interest in this bill only because he will vote along the party line.

I am disappointed and surprised-although I am not surprised to see Bloc members do their work, because they always do it well, with passion and accuracy-to realize that, in such an important debate, the Liberal Party did not manage to recruit even one member to present its position. They are ashamed of its position and it shows.

I understand why they look so sheepish over there. This bill is clearly indefensible. They are not taking part in the debate; their minister failed to get a single Liberal member to speak tonight in defense of their position, particularly on the motions in GroupNo. 11. This is rather surprising.

Liberal members are very disappointed. Especially those from Quebec, those who are directly concerned by the problem of harbours, the problem we have shown to be serious, for example with regard to navigational aids.

Now, these members know that this legislation lacks openness, like their party, like their leader. Also, every time we remind them of their promises, every time we point out they are not taking part in a debate as important as this one, they think of their red book, that they held up all the time on the campaign trail and that they are now trying to hide under their feet, because none of their promises has been kept.

Be it on the GST, on the transfer of copyright management from the Department of Industry to the heritage department, on their commitment to job creation programs, on the day care program, everything has been forgotten: the election is over. This is what Liberals always do, so this should come as a surprise to nobody.

However, we see in that party some sincere members who are frank enough to tell us outside the House how ashamed and disappointed this policy we are discussing today makes them.

Just imagine. It is impossible to foresee the economic impact of this bill on users. No assessment of the impact has been made. The bill has nevertheless been introduced in the House, and they said: We will just wait and see what happens. But everything the Liberals propose, whether constitutional or economic, always go wrong. What is to be blamed for the present deficit if not the Liberal policies of the past, more particularly from 1981 to 1984? Who has drawn us into this constant constitutional quagmire? The Liberal Party. And now, the Liberals are transferring the coast guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without knowing for sure whether there will be an internal reform or whether the services of the coast guard are those users need, and without consultation of the users on the services they would like to have. It is quite surprising.

They made a presentation during the committee hearings the Bloc Quebecois called for, and witnesses said in so many words that the study made by IBI was a sham, a totally irrelevant exercise, as if they had studied the mating rites of the dodo bird instead of the problem of heavy cargo ships. Nothing in this bill is relevant to the services users really need.

These consultations were decried by all the participants. The government should have asked itself: "Why ask a private firm to consult the people, when we could do it ourselves, through a parliamentary committee that would be able, in a matter of just a few days, to meet with all the stakeholders, who could certainly make suggestions in the best interests of the people and the government, because of the savings they would entail, and in the interests of the users who, without having to face a fees increase, would be in a better position to compete against the port of Halifax and also the ports in the United States, and in particular, the port of Philadelphia, known for its very aggressive approach to recruiting new clients?"

We have a government that does not listen to anyone-as we can see on the constitutional issue in Quebec-in all the bills it has introduced, but this bill beats all.

We were told: "You can rely on us". In fact, they introduced a bill in which they said: "We transfer the Coast Guard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. But wait until you see this, we will try to charge some new fees. Will it be 10 cents or a dollar? We do not know exactly, we will try something and take it from there". But if the whole economy collapses and we muddle the issue, what will happen? Will we be able to react? And what about the small businesses in my area, close to the port of Sorel, Fagen, for example, and the bigger companies, in the Bécancour industrial park, the largest industrial park in Canada, that all need adequate and modern services?

The Coast Guard really needs to evaluate its own services, especially when it comes to administrative costs. I am not talking here of boat crews but of administrative costs. This should be reviewed before any transfer is made, if it is ever made. There must be valid reasons to do this, like helping the users, who will in

turn better serve the people and save money while maintaining the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence ports.

These were the questions raised a little while ago by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières and the hon. member for Châteauguay, who quoted a letter released by the Quebec minister representing the views of not only the Quebec government but also the chairperson of the executive committee of the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal and Mr. Patrice Simard, who is the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal. They all agree on the great threat this can be for the economy of Montreal. This is what these people who represent the economic interests of Greater Montreal are saying to the government and the government turns a deaf ear. There should be a limit to that kind of insults.

Why does the government not listen and not take the time to read the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois? Why does it not postpone passage of this bill until the fall in order to hold quick consultations on these fees that will apparently have devastating effects? Actually, we will receive the first billing for signalling at the beginning of July. As for icebreaking and dredging, the fees could be astronomical, but the users will not have their say in selecting the services they wish.

The users are certainly willing to assume their share with regard to icebreaking, dredging and the setting up of the signals, but they want to do it at the lowest possible cost. And there is no guarantee for that. They know strictly nothing about the supplementary fees that will be charged. They have to take the risk without knowing the economic consequences. Consultation is lacking. Clearly, there is a self-examination to make regarding the methods used by the Coast Guard to manage the services and revise them in order to make them more efficient, modern and well suited to the present needs of the users.

Mr. Speaker, do I have the unanimous consent of the House to exceed the ten minutes at my disposal?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?