David Anderson

[Fisheries, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the questioner is the one member among us who is being convicted for infractions of the fishing code in Canada—

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if a House committee wants to examine this, I would be quite agreeable to asking it to do so.

Do not forget, however, that this fee schedule has not been reviewed for three years. There have been proposals and counterproposals. That is common knowledge, and the industry itself has never indicated that it wanted a moratorium. It knew it was necessary to pay at least part of the government's ice breaking costs.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the original committee proposal was for the industry to pay 17.5% of the costs incurred by the coast guard to operate their icebreakers.

The committee submitted a counterproposal indicating that the industry is willing to pay half the costs. Industry representatives have never refused to pay part of the costs associated with the operation of icebreakers on the St. Lawrence River.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his question, which is very much to the point.

The industry itself has not suggested a moratorium. Instead, it has come up with a proposal to pay part of the coast guard service provided to the commercial sector. That is the counter-proposal we are now examining.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listen with interest to the hon. member's arguments, which are much more to the point and effective than the protestations of the two members who have already spoken.

Under the present proposal, ferries run by the province and not covered by the terms of union, depending on the body of water in question, will have to pay, such as the Marine Atlantic ferries running between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what I just said. We accepted the proposed rate scale. Afterwards, we received a counterproposal from the industry and we are taking it seriously. We are reviewing that counterproposal. I even reviewed the criticism made by the Bloc Quebecois members.

What are we supposed to do? Ignore the industry and the politicians representing the region affected? No. Upon receiving a counterproposal, we looked at it. As soon as our review is completed, we will announce the government's decision.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question includes the same error as the premise of the other Bloc Quebecois member who spoke about this.

Our position has not changed. We had a proposed rate scale from an industry committee. We are now looking at a counterproposal made two weeks ago. We are reviewing it and, as soon as a decision is made, we will announce that decision.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I said today the exact same thing I have been saying for weeks. We are considering counterproposals from the industry. I can assure you that even the industry has not suggested a moratorium on rates.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear clearly, but my position has not changed in any way.

I have said from the start that there was a rate schedule in place and that we would be reviewing it after receiving feedback from the industry. The industry has made counterproposals, and we are looking at them.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday with a group from the industry to discuss their counterproposals. I am currently examining their remarks from yesterday and the counterproposal they gave me last week.

At the moment, there is no good reason to act on the member's request. We will see. I have to discuss the matter with my cabinet colleagues as well.