Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena had the floor, but perhaps I could start right away and he can use his remaining five minutes shortly, if he wishes.
We have now reached motions in Group No. 11 at report stage of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
Group No. 11 comprises three motions. I will just run over them, since we were interrupted for a vote and for private members' business.
The member for Vancouver Quadra referred to Motions Nos. 67 and 68 proposed by the Liberal Party. I have problems living with what the government proposes in Motions Nos. 67 and 68. I say to the House I intend to vote against them.
As for Motion No. 70 proposed by the Reform member for Skeena, I am pleased to see that, even though we form the official opposition and the hon. member for Skeena and myself represent ridings at the opposite ends of the country, one in Vancouver and the other in Gaspé, the nose of Quebec, we can still reach a similar view on how to administer the Coast Guard.
I would like to read the final part of his motion, which states:
-provided in the most cost effective manner possible.
The hon. member for Skeena takes advantage of the opportunity to add what he means by this. He says:
"The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries."
And what does this mean? Who are the beneficiaries? The objective of the Coast Guard, through its new fee charging powers, is to get money out of the users. They went from hearing to hearing, trying to make us understand in committee the new Coast Guard charges for navigational aids, trying to get through our thick skulls the idea of user fees.
A real user pays principle implies canvassing those using our services to find out the type of service they really want. Those paying for the service are also entitled to have their say. They want to know from the government whether the service offered is at the lowest possible cost, whether it could be offered another way and whether privatization is a possibility. All this in the context of the socio-economic and human impact on those who have to deal with the rationalization.
Regardless, as for the need for this motion, as we will see later in Group No. 12, that ideas will blend. The principle is to have the government not collect money just for the sake of collecting it and not to lay principles on the table and then ignore them later.
The government says: "We want to collect money, we are short". The Bloc Quebecois also advocated deficit reduction in the latest election campaign. However, the difference lies in achieving the objective. And here I am delighted to see that even people at the other end of the country, who call themselves reformers, can appreciate good common sense.
So, I still have to try to convince one of the three groups in the House. I realize the job is a bit difficult, but part of our work in Parliament is to try to find the words to help them understand the thing.
What can I say? I spent three weeks in hearings, from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. People would come and express their opinions. This too is hard to take: there were consultations, but it did not change a thing, and the legislation was not yet in force.
Imagine what would happen if we did not include right away in this bill the principle that there must be consultation, that users must be able to say what level of service would be appropriate and what level of spending they feel capable of taking on. To negotiate this change it is contemplating, this change it has to make to face the music and reduce its deficit, the Canadian government needs the help of the industry. It needs to establish what I would call partnership ties. I will reaffirm this basic principle over and over again.
In previous motions, we dealt with the notion of partnership in the context of the integrated management strategy that needed to be developed. In these motions, I specified that Canada's partners were the provinces, which make up Canada. In the case at hand, they are service users. These services are sometimes used by the provinces, but most of the time, they are used by industries and businesses.
As such, these should be our focus of attention. It is with them in mind that the consultation and feedback process should be put in place. But nowhere in this bill do I see this notion expressed. I cannot detect this kind of spirit in there. I cannot detect a hint of this notion either. What shall we make of it, especially when we see the minister press on with his new tariff structure after three quarters of those in the industry came before the committee to tell us loud and clear and in black and white that they did not want this new tariff structure for navigational aids, for commercial shipping? How far will they go if we let them? That was my first point.
Second, still on the same topic, the coast guard's new fee schedule for navigation aids was set for purely financial reasons. The Minister of Finance gave an order. Even though the coast guard appeared not to have a choice, it did have one. It could have continued to cut spending. If it wanted to collect more revenue, it could have considered what the people had to say about this.
Talking about a $20 million financial objective is a mathematical trick, as commercial shipping activities are not spread over 12 months. Rather, the targeted level of activity must be compressed into the commercial shipping period. Consequently, the objective for this summer should be set at $26 million or $28 million to take this into account.
Furthermore, still on this topic, what is not mentioned is who will administer all this. How will these accounts be collected? At this point, no one knows. The funniest thing in all this is that these orders were not published for 30 days in the Canada Gazette , as it customary for any order of the governor in council.
This item in Part II slipped through almost unnoticed on a Friday afternoon. The industry was flabbergasted. They are still wondering how all this will be administered and what the administrative costs will be. I have already heard that the person who will administer this new fee schedule will receive a 5 per cent commission to bill the people concerned.
The bill has not been passed yet, but the regulations on the new fee schedule have just been put in place. There was mention of $20 million, then $28 million because of the short collection period, and they have just added 5 per cent. There is nothing reassuring in all this. We do not see how this shows respect for those who will use this service. I think it is very important to instil such respect and entrench it in this bill.