Fred Mifflin

[Coast Guard, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member in response to his concern that if he is suggesting Newfoundland is being subsidized, he

should get in touch with the premier of Newfoundland who yesterday suggested that Newfoundland was paying more than its fair share.

Everybody thinks they are paying more than their fair share. Everybody believes in user fees, but nobody wants to pay one cent. I will tell the hon. member that the taxpayer of Canada can no longer assume the cost of these kinds of services. We have to move forward.

We are moving forward with the lowest possible tariff: 10 per cent of what it costs to do this. We have to move forward at this low level. At the same time we have to reassure ourselves and those companies that are saying they are going to lose everything that paying less than 3 per cent of the port cost at the taxpayers' expense, paying less than 3 per cent of a voyage cost and paying less than 10 per cent of the cost of the services is fair and equitable. I believe it is fair and equitable, as do most people in the country.

[Coast Guard, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position nor will I ever be in the position of pitting one region of the country against another. I simply want to say two things to the hon. member.

First, he asked why the opposition in Quebec would not go along with the concern which he has expressed. I do not know the full details, but I believe its reasoning was that it would be prepared to look at these fees if indeed the Quebec government would look at some of the fees which it is contemplating for the little guy, the small taxpayer, for bridge tolls and that kind of thing.

Second, if the member is looking at one region against another, I will tell him one more time that the fees that are paid are based on the level of services provided. To make sure that this will work properly there are two impact studies in place which will show what is in fact happening.

[Coast Guard, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that marine services fees are user fees that pay for the use of public facilities which taxpayers pay for right now. He also knows that the charges are applied fairly across the country. The system was developed over a period of five months, stemming from recommendations made by the Marine Advisory Board.

With respect to being fair and equitable, 850 consultations were conducted in this period of time. I believe the standing committee itself looked at 26 industries.

I can assure the hon. member that the fees levied in Montreal are as fair as those levied in any other part of the country, including the Great Lakes area. If there is a difference in the total cost, it relates to the volume of traffic.

[Coast Guard, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are many other considerations involved. The information at this time is that the 10 per cent recovery, which amounts to $20 million across Canada, will not divert traffic to any other port.

Most of our trading partners have similar fees. Is the hon. member saying he would like the big companies not to pay the 10 per cent of the share the taxpayers actually provide when other organizations and smaller people are paying their fair share? I do not believe he is suggesting that.

[Coast Guard, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that all the shipping industries are very important to the economy of Canada.

What we are merely asking is that we expect them to pay a user fee for public facilities provided by the public at taxpayers' expense. This user fee is reasonable. It is less than one tenth of one per cent of the total value of the cargoes. It is less than 3 per cent of voyage costs. It is less than 10 per cent of the services provided.

While there are some differences about how the fee should be paid, it is safe to say most of the industries that have been consulted and that have appeared before the standing committee, while they do not particularly want to pay the fees, are prepared to pay their fair share of the public cost.

[Fisheries, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about coastal communities and economic viability and capacity reduction, he knows very well he is talking about an industry that is in very poor shape. There are fishermen over the last few years who have lost much money. This year over 50 per cent are expected to lose money. The industry itself is expected to lose around $10 million. He is talking about an industry that is in trouble.

I have to tell the member that the plan which is represented by the Pacific salmon revitalization program stemmed from a committee report of stakeholders of the commercial fisheries, the aboriginal fisheries, the recreational fisheries, the coastal communities and the province of British Columbia. They made 27 recommendations and we moved on them.

The member asked me if I was going to be responsible for the plan. I will take responsibility for this plan. Will Reformers take responsibility for the fact that they have no plan?

[Fisheries, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that in view of Reform's position on the GST and what is taking place with that, I am delighted that Reform is interested in having the government cut down its operations.,

In the last year the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has undergone quite a cut through program review. While we have not reached 50 per cent, the department I represent is cutting by over 40 per cent. That is not a bad perspective from where I sit.

[Coast Guard, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is coming up with some far-fetched unsubstantiated ideas.

The hon. member knows because he has heard it often in committee and this House that the cost overall at the $20 million level is going to represent one-sixtieth of one per cent of the value of the goods itself. It is going to represent less than 10 per cent of what it costs the coast guard to maintain these services. It is going to cost less than three per cent of the overall value of the business of doing shipments in the ports of Canada. I think that is fair and equitable.

[Coast Guard, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the imposition of the marine services fee stems from the 1995 budget approved by Parliament based on the principle of user pay.

The idea of how the fee could be implemented was put forward by the Marine Advisory Board. There were 800 people or thereabouts involved in the consultations which involved ports officials and every major industry in the seagoing industry.

The hon. member joined his colleagues from Parliament on the fisheries committee to hear the views of many witnesses. The hon. member is right; the committee made recommendations but the consensus was not that there be a moratorium. The committee did express some reservations with respect to the impact studies. I have to tell the House that I will respect its opinions. The impact studies will be carried out after the services fee is implemented at the lowest possible level of collection of $20 million a year before we get to the higher levels.

[Fisheries, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that I will be meeting with a group from British Columbia. I have great sensitivity to their concerns but I have to tell the member that in this matter the fish come first, the fishermen and then the politics.