Fred Mifflin

[Taxation, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. In Ontario alone, there were four deaths involved in recreational boating this past weekend.

The idea of recreational boating fees is based on marine safety. The industry has suggested that government may want to help by making sure that those who go on the water, whether in a small boat or a large boat, are first trained in safety and have the qualifications and the training courses that are necessary to ensure that the loss of life, be it on salt water or freshwater, is kept to a minimum. We hope to be able to contribute in that area.

[Fisheries, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member is under the impression that Mr. Clark is helping me with this plan.

I am delighted to move forward. If Mr. Clark is happy to help me with support in one area, fish habitat, because protecting fish habitat against damage caused by logging, mining, highway construction and urban development are certainly areas where I could do with some help.

I thank the hon. member for raising the subject. I look forward to any help that Premier Clark can give me on this plan.

[Fisheries, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that today the hon. member is saying 50 per cent. Last week it was 25 per cent. I am not sure what the number will be tomorrow.

I remind the hon. member and the House that the purpose of the plan to revitalize the Pacific salmon is essentially to give fishermen a choice. The choice is to exit the fishery, to stay in the fishery and continue to fish in one area or to expand investment in the fishery by buying licences from those who exit the fishery and essentially give the salmon a better chance.

It is a plan that was developed in consultation with fishermen. It is a plan that has a lot of support in British Columbia and it is a plan that will work.

[Fisheries, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not doubting the word of the hon. member, although I am very surprised to hear it. Dr. Pearse was in my office at eight o'clock this morning. He told me he was very supportive of the plan, so I have difficulty with what the member said.

The plan is one of choices. There are three choices. The fishermen can choose to exit the fishery, they can continue to fish with their present investment, or they can increase their investment by buying a licence from a fisherman who exits the fishery and increase the number of licences. These are choices for fishermen that will relieve the pressure on the fish stocks and will result in a better economy and a more viable industry.

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments and one of the observations made as we went forward with the marine service fees was that the

coast guard, aids to navigation and marine services cost too much. We take people seriously. We looked at the requirement to reduce and we are reducing.

Last year we reduced $27 million. This year we will be reducing $30 million. By the turn of the century we will be saving the taxpayer and the Government of Canada $200 million a year, which is good news to all taxpayers.

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about is the reduction in marine services.

The Bloc wants it both ways. It wants to not have marine service fees and have the taxpayers pay for that, the small taxpayers. It wants to reduce the fees but it does not want to reduce the services.

Which way does he want it? The hon. member cannot have it both ways.

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before the announcement of the basic fee structure in January, there was an IBI study carried out by consultants essentially to show the impact on the industry could be absorbed.

The results were positive and showed the impact could easily be absorbed at the level of $20 million spread in accordance with the prorated use of marine services.

I must tell the hon. member I am not proceeding in the blind. I am proceeding with the consultation of 850 other organizations and people, and the fees will proceed as planned.

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows these fees are not unilateral. They were voted on in the House of Commons. They were put forward in a study done last year. They were put forward by the Marine Advisory Board, which involves members of the industry from across Canada. They were studied. There were consultations with 850 organizations and individuals right across the country. They were tried four different ways. They were rearranged. The were reiterated. They were refined.

Everything possible that could be done with these fees to make them fair and equitable has been done. After the fees are implemented there will be studies to ensure they are fairly done and fairly put together with respect to marine services.

We are looking at 11 per cent of the overall fees for the coast guard marine services and the aids to navigation at less than an average of 3 per cent of the overall port charges.

[Fisheries, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would make up his mind. Two days ago it was 25 per cent; now it is 50 per cent. The truth of the matter is that this has been taken into consideration. Whether or not the hon. member can add, subtract or divide I have to say that the allocations will be put in place as part of the fine tuning. Those people who have to make the decisions will make the decisions on all the information that it is possible to provide them with at the time.

[Fisheries, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to announcing the return of salmonoid enhancement programs, I did have the opportunity when in British Columbia to meet with eight different groups representing many sectors within the commercial fishery, union groups, aboriginal groups, packers and coastal communities.

We all agreed on the objective, sustainability, viability of the industry and conservation, although there was not a 100 per cent consensus on the way it should be achieved.

In every group discussion was positive and many suggestions were offered which, I am pleased to announce to the House, I will be able to take into consideration and in the next few days announce some adjustments and fine tuning to the main plan that will remain as is but will be adjusted to soften the blow.