Debates of June 12th, 1996

Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 13, which includes Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 13, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered."

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 30, the following new Clause:

"48.1 Fees in respect of products, rights and privileges fixed under clause 48 shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific product, rights and privileges to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the product, rights and privileges are delivered."

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) Fees that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered."

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39, on page 30, with the following:

"50(1) Before fixing a fee under this Act, the Minister shall consult with all beneficiaries, according to stipulations in subsection 41(2). In this context a recommendation shall be sought from the Marine Advisory Board to the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard."

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

"the Minister shall consult with the provincial governments and with such persons or".

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

"the Minister shall consult with the standing committee and with such persons or".

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page 30, with the following:

"(2) The Minister shall, within 30 days after fixing or amending a fee under this Act, publish the fee in the Canada Gazette by such appropriate electronic or other means that the Treasury Board may authorize by regulation. A subsequent period of 90 days shall be allowed from the date of publishing in the Canada Gazette before implementing the fee or an amended fee. The text of the Marine Advisory Board's recommendation shall be included in the published announcement, together with a clear illustration of the justification for the new fee."

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 30, the following:

"(3) Any interested person who has reason to believe that the proposed fee is not fair and equitable may file notice of objection with the Minister no later than 30 days after the publication of the proposed fee.

(4) Where a notice of objection is filed, the Minister shall appoint a person to investigate whether the charging of the proposed fee is fair and equitable. The person so appointed shall report to the Minister within 60 days and the Minister shall, by order, approve or amend the proposed fee. The Minister's decision together with the report shall be published in the Canada Gazette with immediate effect, namely at the end of the original 90 day period as specified in subsection 50(2)."

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again on what looks like the end of our odyssey. We have had a good debate. I appreciated the last several interventions from the Bloc with wit and brevity which, as we have said, is a delightful fact in a debate on a hot, muggy Ottawa afternoon.

The suggestions made in the debate have been valuable. I have listened and I have heard what has been said. There is a distinction between those two phrases. It is part of the government's attitude to respect parliamentary debates and to acquire wisdom from the process of give and take. On that basis we can certainly look forward to a valuable third reading.

I have to make some comments on the motions as presented which are without prejudice to positions I might take on third reading.

In the atmosphere of goodwill that attends us in the twilight hours of this debate I hate to say that Motion No. 77 would create an administrative nightmare and an expensive one at that. It would obligate the minister to calculate the costs of the facility or service for each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. It would provide an administrative, expensive, time consuming need to calculate cost per individual user. It would rigidly and arbitrarily preclude the minister from choosing any other fee implementation scheme, even if it were preferred by the beneficiaries.

The government feels this would not meet favourably with the many Canadians who have expressed to us that they want to avoid excessive governmental regulation.

Motion No. 79 proposes the same thing. The minister has to calculate the cost of providing a protected right and privilege to each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. The government feels that would be impractical.

With respect to Motion No. 81, technically we feel it is incorrect. Clause 49 refers to fees in respect of regulatory processes or approvals. The proposed amendment refers to the use of facility or service. Therefore, technically the motion is not relevant to the provision it seeks to modify.

Motion No. 83 concerns clause 50 of the act which pertains to consultation and publication requirements. It would obligate the minister to consult with all beneficiaries before fixing a fee and to seek a recommendation from the Marine Advisory Board regarding the proposed fee. It would obligate consultation in perpetuity. We think it would be an administrative nightmare and on that basis we suggest against its adoption.

Bloc Motion No. 84 deals with the same clause. It would obligate the minister to consult with the provinces before fixing a fee. We do not think the minister should be so obligated.

Motion No. 85 deals with clause 50. We feel it again attempts to fetter the discretion of the minister.

Motions Nos. 86 and 87 were put forward by the hon. member for Skeena who has made very thoughtful contributions to the parliamentary committee and in this debate. Motion No. 86 would allow any interested person the right to object within 30 days of publication. The minister must appoint an investigator. It would be a very heavy administrative burden with astronomical costs at a time when we are stressing economy: cutting back on big government and costs.

The Canada Oceans Act is based on consultation, co-operation and partnership. It is in that spirit that we have approached it. We are therefore recommending that members reject Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.

We believe the act will provide the legislative foundation upon which federal, provincial and territorial governments can work in a full spirit of co-operative federalism, sharing in decision making on a basis of functional utility in the good interests of all Canadians. In recommending the rejection of these motions, nevertheless, I assure hon. members that I have benefited by their valuable contributions to the debate and that I will pass on their views to the government.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised that the government member spoke to our motions in this group before the Reform Party had spoken, but I am glad he did.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra thinks we should not consult with provinces like British Columbia that he is from. He thinks we should not have any obligation to talk to the various users and beneficiaries, for example the Marine Advisory Board. He thinks that we should not talk to any of these people, that it would be time consuming. He is right. It would be a total waste of time because clearly the minister of oceans does not listen to anybody anyway.

The Reform Party believes in the user pay concept but it also believes in-and I think I have even heard a few Liberals use it-user pay, user say. That has not happened. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that they have no intention of changing their tune and giving the users any say or any input into the various fees and policies they come up with.

I am not a regular member of the committee that dealt with the matter but I sat in on a lot of the meetings. It was pretty clear what was being said by the users the government was pretending to consult with. They understood the user pay concept, the need for them to pay for the services they used, and they are to do that. However first they wanted to make sure they were paying a reasonable amount for it. They had no idea of the true costs of the coast guard.

They are prepared to pay for them but they should be implemented after an economic impact study to determine the real costs and how to bring them forward in a manner that does cripple the industry.

I have risen in the House several times and referred to the minister as the minister of oceans. I specifically and intentionally leave off fisheries. It is not the minister himself, but certainly the department has all but destroyed the east coast fisheries and many species over the years. Now it is doing a hell of a job of doing the same thing on the west coast. If the bill were implemented in an irresponsible and improperly thought out and possibly premature manner, it would do the same thing to the oceans the minister's department has done to the fisheries.

The Reform Party policy dealing with user pay has three basic concepts: first, the users should pay for what they use; second, they should only have to use those things they need; and, third, it should be on a commercially fair and reasonable basis.

With regard to the coast guard, it has not opened its books. We do not even know if it keeps books, in the regular concept of it. We do not know if there somewhere sits a coast guard as a business with a ledger showing its expenses, its revenues, where it spends money, where its costs are, and what it is doing to control costs. There is none of that. Nobody has opened the books.

The coast guard is saying: "Trust us. There is a lot of costs out there and you should pay them". Then it says: "We are even going to be real fair in implementing this. We are only going to charge you 20 per cent so how can you possibly object?"

If the 20 per cent represents 100 per cent or more of the reasonable costs of that portion of the service they are applying to cost recovery and to the marine users, perhaps they are paying too much.

The coast guard says this is something the users should be able to absorb without any harm. The minister says that yes, a study is need but he has done one. He has consulted with the Mariport group which stated in a report that the users are going to be able to accept the impact of this with no harm.

Why should we believe some of the other things we are being told if this is the justification the minister is using? The person from Mariport who did the report has recanted the entire report. The report found there would be no unbearable impact and that these costs could be absorbed based on the information the department supplied.

The department changed all of the parameters after the report came in. The department told the consultant it was going to do this, this and this, (a), (b) and (c). On the basis of that the department wanted a study done to see if it was feasible and absorbable by the users. The department then turned around after the fact and said it was going to scrap (a), modify (b), double (c) and add (d), (e), (f) and (g). The consultant said they were now looking at fees that were four times as much as what they were led to believe would be imposed when they did the study. There is no credibility at all in the ministry or in the minister in the way these fees have been introduced.

As far as an impact study, the minister has said there should be an economic impact study. That is a great idea. It is exactly what the users asked for so it seems they may be on line. The only problem is that the users said they needed to do an impact study to see how to implement this and the minister said something totally different. He said they were going to go ahead and implement it.

The minister's own notes state that they know there will be damage and problems; they know there will be loss of business to American shippers which is going to cause problems. He stated they are going to wait and see what kind of devastation the bill does on the industry and then do an economic impact study to see what they did wrong and how much damage it caused. That is a pretty backward way of approaching this.

Reform has a total of six amendments and the Bloc has two in this group. Contrary to what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said, we do not think it is unreasonable to consult with people. In fact, we are here as the representatives of people, at least that is what I and my colleagues in the Reform Party are here for. We did not get elected to be the rulers.

It is absolutely despicable that the Liberal Party says it should have no obligation to consult with the provinces that are impacted by this. It says it should have absolutely no requirement to talk to the marine advisory board which is supposed be the expert on this. It says it should have no obligation whatsoever to talk to the users who are going to be impacted by this. Given that the Liberals never listen when people do talk, I suppose they are trying to save the taxpayers money by not bothering with a process that they will end up ignoring.

Contrary to what the hon. member says, I implore members opposite to join with us in bringing in reasonable measures. We need measures that limit the powers of the minister and ministers who follow him in the future, that limit the powers of the government, and which make it necessary that we, the elected representatives of the people, must actually talk to the people so we know what it is they want us to represent.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, following on the words of my colleague, when we look at these motions they deal with principles: the principle of fairness, the principle of efficiency, and the principle of cost effectiveness.

Last year the coast guard announced to the Canadian shipping industry and ports that it was going to start charging fees for services that heretofore had been paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

The Reform Party and I believe in the concept and principle of user pay. It is not right that Canadian taxpayers living in Winnipeg, Calgary, Thunder Bay, or in Vancouver for that matter, should be subsidizing Canada's shipping industry any more than they should be subsidizing any other industry. In principle, we believe the government is going in the right direction.

There is a serious problem with this legislation. We on this side of the House would like to be able to support this legislation but if these amendments cannot be passed by the House, I fear we will not be able to support it. The powers granted to the minister under this legislation are so broad and there is no provision for accountability that down the road regulations can be changed at whim.

The minister does not even have to go through the process of gazetting. He does not have to go through the process he currently is required to go through in order to raise additional money. We fear that in the future there will be a powerful temptation on the

part of whoever is fulfilling the role of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to use this legislation to raise additional money.

That is why we view these amendments and this part of the regulations, sections 81 through 89, as important. We believe strongly that this is a window of opportunity to ensure for all time that any future changes to the regulations with respect to fees for services the coast guard may charge will have to be dealt with fairly and up front, in a manner that is going to require Parliament's perusal.

The way it is set up now, unless these amendments are adopted, there is no requirement for scrutiny down the road. There is no requirement for any future changes to come back to the House or to come back to the standing committee. There is no requirement for any kind of review. We argue strongly that this is wrong in principle. It does not provide anything for the shippers and the people who depend on the shipping industry.

We on the standing committee heard witnesses from coast to coast telling us about their concerns with this new fee for service. They talked about the viability of their businesses. They were not in the shipping industry, but were people involved in the oil and gas business, people involved in the aggregate business, people involved in other bulk products such as iron ore, grain, lumber and coal. We heard from all these people. They have real concerns about how viable their businesses are going to be down the road as the government moves to higher and higher user fees.

Each and every witness who appeared before the committee said that before the coast guard implemented user fees, it ought to be able to justify those fees on the basis that the services it is providing are actually priced at fair market values. It should be able to justify that the services it is providing are actually services the customers want and need and that they are being delivered efficiently.

The parliamentary secretary knows there are many instances where witnesses appeared before the committee and said: "You are proposing to charge us for something that we can do ourselves for far less cost. We are willing to take that responsibility on. We will go out and service that navigational aid. We will go out and look after our own ice breaking. We will go out and look after it ourselves. We do not need the government to do it. We do not need the coast guard to do it".

The people who are being forced to pay the user fees ought to have that opportunity and that right. With the way the legislation now reads, there is no requirement on the part of the government or on the part of the minister to sit down and negotiate a deal with these people in good faith.

A hue and cry went from one end of the coast to the other after the coast guard announced its intent to collect a user fee last year. I

would suggest that there has been a fair bit of movement on the part of the coast guard to take into consideration the concerns of many of the people we heard at the standing committee and this is a good thing.

However this legislation is our window of opportunity. It is our way of guaranteeing as parliamentarians that Canada's shippers and shipping industry are not going to be faced with costs down the road that they will have no opportunity to address and which parliamentarians will have no opportunity to review.

I represent a riding that has a significant marine shipping industry. There could be changes to the regulations that we as parliamentarians may never know about unless the affected bodies complain to us. That is no way to run the country. For us to say: "We can do as we like until people yell and complain at such a level that we obviously have to stand back and take a different approach", is no way to govern the country and no way to change or enact regulations.

In closing, these amendments are important to the Reform Party. We would like to be able to support the bill. We would like to say: "In principle the oceans act is a good bill. There are still some things we would like to see changed but on balance we can support it". However unless we get the motions passed that demand some accountability from the minister, the department and the commissioner of the coast guard, I fear we cannot support the legislation.

Recently we found out that boaters from one end of the country to the other-never mind people who depend on the shipping industry-but boaters are going to be forced to pay a registration fee. If a person owns a rowboat or a canoe an annual fee will have to be paid to the government. For what?

These matters have to be debated in the House Commons and the standing committee. Right now they are not. Some bureaucrat on Kent Street dreams up a regulation and says: "This is where we can make more money. We can tag those guys. We have not tagged them before". In essence it becomes a hidden tax and it is passed without any scrutiny, without any accountability. In some instances parliamentarians are not even aware of it.

We insist that these amendments be passed. If they are not passed, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Group No. 13. These are, again, very important motions. Since this is that last group of motions, let me start with a brief preamble, nothing too long.

During the report stage here in the House, every time I rose to speak on the 13 groups of motions with, as the hon. member for Chambly put it, a hand held out in co-operation and a new approach to constitutional negotiations, because I did not want to launch a constitutional debate, I only wanted to make the government realize that to reach this bill's goal, which is to implement an integrated oceans management strategy, it had to create some kind of partnership.

I wanted to draw the government's attention to the fact that, in my opinion, the government's major partners are the provinces, because they are the ones that formed Canada. For each part of this bill-there are three-I asked the government not to forget about the provinces and to consult with them right at the beginning and, in some cases, to work with them.

Since we are talking about Motions Nos. 84 and 85 concerning the fees stipulated in clause 50, let me say again that I am asking the government to consult with the provinces, because it is within their territories that the action will take place. In many cases, we want the provinces to levy the fees.

In order to improve transparency, I am urging the government in Motion No. 85 to consult with the standing committee. I want to reassure the House that consulting with a House committee is nothing to worry about, especially since the majority of the standing committee members are from the Liberal Party. That is what my motions on this issue are all about.

As for the other motions, Motions Nos. 77, 79 and 81 presented by members of the Reform Party, I regret to say that we are not in agreement with them. We think that the idea of setting fees by specific marine sector runs counter to what the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee were saying. The majority of witnesses objected to the government's proposal of dividing the country into three regions. I therefore cannot go along with the Reform Party's motions.

However, in order to show you that, in the House and in committee, we have taken a non-partisan approach for the good of the cause, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, since the purpose of this motion is to force the government to consult with the users of services.

It would be only natural to consult the users, given that, in the case of fees for navigational aids for commercial vessels, the government has often used the expression "user pay". But there is also the expression "user pay, user say". I think that this is the thought behind the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, which the Bloc Quebecois will support.

Motions Nos. 86 and 87 are very interesting and very forward looking. I would not want to get into the wording as such. But I am very interested to see that they contain the idea of a two way communication. Motion No. 83 provides that users shall be consulted. Motion No. 86 specifies how users shall be informed. The idea is a very good one and we will support it.

Time is flying and I must quickly wrap up. Motion No. 86 sets out when the information shall be published and how must time shall elapse. Motion No. 87 provides for a process of feedback. It is not enough to announce something. You must make sure that it will produce the expected results. If someone in Canada can show the government that it is on the wrong track, there has to be a review mechanism. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore support the Reform Party's Motions Nos. 86 and 87.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have appreciated working with parliamentarians from all parties, especially members of the Bloc Quebecois, who sometimes got quite carried away. You cannot blame them for their enthusiasm, with all they had to say, and their responsibility as representatives of the people of Quebec. I think we should be proud of the work they did.

We hope that the work we did as the official opposition will bring the government around to delaying third reading of this bill, because they need to go back to the drawing board. On that note, and in the hope that the government will be understanding about third reading, which, we hope, will take place as late as possible next fall, the Bloc Quebecois is ready for the vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I understand that, under an agreement made earlier, if there is no other speaker at the report stage of Bill C-26, the question is now to be put. I would remind you also that, under a further agreement, the question is deemed to have been requested on Motion No. 77 and to have been deferred.

Furthermore, as requested by the whips, the bell will be rung for only 15 minutes instead of 30.

The vote is on Motion No. 77. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.