Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
The purpose of this bill is to allow the coast guard to charge for its services, including navigational aids and ice breaking, by giving the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to impose such fees.
This bill also deals with the environment, as well as the registration of pleasure craft by the coast guard and related fees, aspects I will address later.
The imposition of fees for coast guard services is another fine example of a measure taken without really consulting or co-operating with the main stakeholders, and without knowing the real impact this will have on the affected regions.
Bill C-26 is a fine example of the current Liberal government's real consideration for the respective roles of the federal government and the provinces. In fact, it is impossible to understand or to accept that this bill places the provinces on the same level as any other player like lobby groups, municipalities and industries. This shows a blatant lack of respect and common sense, and we are entitled to think this bill may provoke several other conflicts between Ottawa, the provinces and the various stakeholders.
As for consultations, the Liberal government behaved in its usual fashion. It pretended to consult and listen, but it always ends up doing what it wants without considering the comments made by other parties. All the witnesses who appeared at the hearings held by the fisheries and oceans committee deplored the coast guard's decision making and consultation process, especially the fact that the minister went ahead with the new fee structure without first assessing the economic impact on shipping and related industries.
Furthermore, 75 per cent of witnesses asked the minister to call a moratorium on the new fees while waiting for the impact studies commissioned for this fall. The witnesses also suggested that the minister co-operate with the shipping industry in carrying out economic impact studies. Finally, there was a clear consensus among the stakeholders from the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, in particular the Governments of Quebec and Ontario, against the minister's proposal, which was deemed totally unacceptable.
Everyone agreed that, to avoid causing irreparable harm, we should wait for the results of ongoing studies. But, not surprisingly, the minister completely disregarded all these recommendations and objections, and decided to go ahead with his fee structure, with no regard for its potentially devastating effects on jobs in the shipping industry, a very developed economic sector, especially in Quebec.
How else can we explain that, after weeks of consultations where stakeholders from all regions and all sectors told the government not to go ahead with its proposal, the original version of the bill was not amended in any way? Once again, the costs will trickle down to the public through the user pay principle. This is nothing but a smoke screen.
What is really ridiculous is that there is no indication that the coast guard even tried to downsize its operations before passing on these costs. According to the testimony, the government simply did not do its homework and ensure that such an effort was made.
We therefore find ourselves in the situation where, instead of downsizing its staff, the government is imposing fees on the industry and thus jeopardizing not only the industry but the jobs that depend on it. There is no indication that the coast guard made any effort at all. If the coast guard, which is costing us over $860
million a year, had managed to streamline its operations, that would have meant less money to collect from those who use its services.
Moreover, it is difficult to know what services are actually provided by the coast guard. There was no real effort to make in the most logical and convincing way possible a rational demonstration of the services actually provided to those users and that from now on will have to be paid by the population.
The federal government, for the purpose at hand, is dividing Canada into three regions in order to regionalize its fee policy. Even though the problem is completely the same from east to west, the government is dividing Canada into three big regions: west, central, that is the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, and finally the maritimes. As if by chance, Quebec is the one being taken for a ride since, along with the Great Lakes region, it will assume some 48 per cent of the $20 million that will be collected this year.
Thus Bill C-26 is dividing up the fee structure very badly between different regions and different Canadian harbours. Consider for example the ship crossing the Atlantic to unload its cargo at Sept-Îles. It will have to pay a much higher fee for services whereas the ship going to Thunder Bay will have nothing to pay. Yet the latter navigated 3,700 kilometres more on the river, a waterway maintained by Canada.
Another example: the Canadian owner of a ship registered in a foreign country will pay seven times less than the owner of a ship registered in Canada. The finance minister is certainly aware of this fact. These two examples show that the fee structure presented in Bill C-26 is causing problems. Many things are unfair in this piece of legislation. Whether it is plan B or mere chance, this bill is sure to greatly impair the competitiveness of Quebec ports compared with ports in the maritime provinces.
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 at Canadian ports. That is a serious threat to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.
How competitive will our ports be, as compared to those in the northern U.S. states? Take for instance a ship coming from Europe. It goes in the St. Lawrence River estuary, makes its way up the river, goes by 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.
Moreover, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not consistently applied. In several instances, in Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier for example, users will pay up to $5 million a year for only one buoy.
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.
However, several amendments to these clauses were brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, especially by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé, who went to great pains to find a way to work with the government. The proposed amendments tried, for instance, to make the fees principle more fair and to force the minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before applying or increasing the fees.
The amendments would have prevented the minister from acting unilaterally, without taking into consideration public consultations, as he did when the fees were first introduced back in June 1996. Of course, the minister continued to turn a deaf ear, as his government likes to do.
Now let us turn to the environment aspect of the bill. The bill also deals with environmental issues in a way that will affect the Department of the Environment. This new bill will transfer to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans powers currently belonging to the Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap between these two departments. Again, it is like yin and yang, as the former Minister of Fisheries Brian Tobin told a parliamentary committee last year, when he commented on the relationship between him and Sheila Copps, the Minister of the Environment at the time, by saying that it was like yin and yang.
By creating more overlap, Bill C-26 seems to establish a sectoral environment department, something like a department of coastal environment.
If each department did that, we would end up with an environment transport department in the Department of Transport, or with an environment industry department, and all the government's ministers would have powers regarding environmental protection and preservation. We can easily imagine how dangerous it could get if environmental issues were to be addressed by various
departments. If this is the way this government wants to go, then it only has to abolish the environment department.
The government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this approach.
Some clauses give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the powers to develop and implement a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This strategy calls for the development of activity management plans, of managing or advisory agencies, of numerous programs and of environmental standards, as well as the collecting and analysis of scientific data on the ecosystems concerned.
We must realize that several of these activities were already being carried out by the Department of the Environment. This is another case of duplication, as if we could afford such overlap among federal departments.
Nothing in the legislation compels the minister to reach agreements with other federal departments or the provinces. In most cases, he can ask for the co-operation of other authorities, but only if he wishes to do so.
Such duplication, in the long run, will jeopardize the effectiveness of environmental action. It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the minister not to have to work in co-operation with the officials of other federal departments, in particular the Department of the Environment. There should have been more reflection and more consultations on these points before such changes were made, since in environmental matters, partial responsibility is tantamount to responsibility for the whole ecosystem. When one tries to do too much, one ends up doing nothing right.
Finally, Bill C-26 is another step towards centralization in environmental matters. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to three decision, dispossessed the provinces of the management of the marine environment and territory in favour of the federal government. Today, with Bill C-26, the federal government is trying to get the most out of that ruling. This trend toward centralization may lead the federal government in the medium or long term to try to claim overall management of waters and their use.
Let us talk now of pleasure boating. A real user pay principle implies that we go and ask the people who use these services which one they really want to have. Furthermore, the people who are going to have to pay for this service have the right to be heard. They are asking the government if the service will be offered to them at the lowest cost, taking into account what the socioeconomic and human impacts will be for them.
The principle of user fees is not respected at all in Bill C-26 since the coast guard has announced it intends to make major changes to pleasure boating in all the country's waters. Consultations have been announced, but knowing the importance the federal government attributes to the results of consultations, we have no reason to believe that it will be any different with the coast guard.
In its partnership plan, the government neglected to say that, behind this initiative, there is the recovery of $14 million, whatever what the people will say during the consultations. This is basically a hidden tax hike badly disguised as an effort to promote user safety.
Among other measures, the coast guard wishes to register all types of craft, from the 30 foot sail boat to the row boat. Moreover, fees for all types of craft will be collected by requiring all users to get a registration permit at cost of $20 to $35 annually. The governement also wants to require minimum skills for everyone who handles a boat and to introduce a system of fines similar to those that apply to drivers.
According to the coast guard, these measures are essentially aimed at increasing safety on the water by improving the skills of small pleasure craft users. But one has to be blind not to see that safety is only an excuse to impose a fee structure. It is hard to see how paying a $20 to $35 fee to put a boat in the water will make people more cautious. It is a well known fact that information and awareness are the best ways to change behaviour.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the impact of this bill in a riding like Drummond. In Drummond, there are great numbers of pleasure craft, and water sports are very popular. In those conditions, you can imagine the impact of a fee system on pleasure craft in an area like mine. Even the possibility of fees on pedal boats and sailboards has been raised.
Just think of the impact on all the small and medium size businesses which rent this kind of equipment during summer months and which will have to pay registration fees in addition to all their other expenses. All these companies, which do not make a lot of money, will have to pay additional costs to register their boats. Will people who rent this kind of equipment be more cautious because of the fees?
People who own boats, for their pleasure or for renting, are being designated as users of coast guard services. But in a riding like Drummond, there is no coast guard. The main waterway used for pleasure boating is the Saint-François River, a small river running between Lake Champlain and Lake St-Pierre. It is not a river like the Ottawa, the Richelieu or the Saguenay, which are patrolled by the coast guard.
But the thousands of recreational boaters who use the small navigable portion of that river will have to pay for coast guard services in the same way as those who sail on the St. Lawrence. And yet the least we can say is that we do not often see icebreakers on that river during the winter.
In conclusion, why should we adopt this type of fee structure today? Have we done all we can to try and find another solution? Absolutely not. Through Bill C-26, the federal government is launching an attack against Quebec by imposing service fees, and we must not forget that this comes with the divestment of ports.
On the one hand, the government is opening the door to an interesting future by decentralizing the management of ports but, on the other, it is increasing service fees on the St. Lawrence, which will make ports in the maritimes a lot more competitive. So what the government is giving in terms of autonomy, it is taking away by changing the rules and by imposing service fees that are unfair to Quebec ports.
In Bill C-26, the government takes the liberty of transferring the coast guard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without knowing exactly if there will be a reform and if services provided by the coast guard meet users' needs, all that without allowing users to have their say in the matter.
We cannot predict the economic consequences Bill C-26 will have on users. No serious study has been made. Yet the government is going ahead with this legislation, saying that we will see how it goes. When we look at the various pieces of legislation the Liberals have introduced, very often it has not gone well because of constitutional or economic problems.
The government does a lot but achieves nothing. This bill is very typical of the way this government has been acting. Again it is interfering unilaterally in all areas without any real consultation, which does not solve anything. On the contrary, it creates problems.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I will vote against this bill.
