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-