Yvan Bernier

[Coast Guard, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a clear consensus emerged, during parliamentary consultations, against the fee structure proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for coast guard services. All those concerned find it irresponsible on the minister's part to impose these fees without conducting complete and serious studies on their impact on the marine industry.

Can the minister tell us if he intends to go along with the consensus of those who are asking for a moratorium on the marine service fees until complete and independent economic impact studies have been carried out?

[Coast Guard, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, apart from the problem with the figures the minister just quoted, the consensus I referred to in my first question also reflects that problem.

Does the minister of fisheries admit he is duty bound to respect such a broad consensus against his proposal as drafted, which affects not only Quebec but also Ontario and many stakeholders in the maritimes, including Newfoundland's Oceanex and the port of Halifax?

[Coast Guard, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning in Quebec City, all stakeholders in Quebec's marine sector expressed a clear consensus against the new fee structure the minister of fisheries is about to impose.

Quebec's Minister of Transportation and the seven mayors of the cities with the biggest ports in Quebec, together with representatives of the aluminum industry and all stakeholders in the marine sector, stated very clearly that the minister's new fee structure would likely have a disastrous impact on the Quebec economy.

Can the minister of fisheries tell us if his government intends to respect this Quebec consensus against a new fee structure that could have disastrous consequences on the Quebec economy and on all ports along the St. Lawrence?

[Coast Guard, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to put a second question to the Deputy Prime Minister, as the commissioner himself continues to express his views on this matter.

Since fees will be charged to the ships going to Canadian ports but not to those bound for the U.S., does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the new fee structure threatens to divert marine traffic to U.S. ports?

[Coast Guard, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Those concerned continue to oppose the coast guard's new fee structure. One of the major points raised by a majority of stakeholders is that, if the minister goes ahead without measuring the impact of the new fee structure, our marine sector will become less competitive vis-à-vis the U.S.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the coast guard's new service fee structure will not apply to ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway to deliver their cargoes to American ports on the Great Lakes?

[Coast Guard, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this does not answer the question, but since the minister wants to talk about the four different systems which he intends to create, I will give him a chance to explain what is going on in his neck of the woods. Why does the minister give preferential treatment to his province by granting substantial rebates for navigation aids to ships that will dock in Newfoundland, at the expense of the other regions, including the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, which already absorb half of the costs related to navigation aids?

How does the minister explain that? He creates three or four different systems and subsidizes his province in the process.

[Coast Guard, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, intereted parties from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes regions continue to appear before the standing committee on fisheries and oceans to oppose the new fee structure for coast guard services which the Minister of Fisheries wants to impose. Since his appointment, the minister has always refused to meet those affected by the new fees.

How can the minister explain his systematic refusal to meet these interested parties, given that formal requests were made to him, among others by the Government of Quebec and by five presidents of aluminum producers in Canada, which have sales totalling $4 billion and which provide over 45,000 direct and indirect jobs? How can the minister justify his refusal to meet these people?

[Fees For Marine Services, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can assume the minister has said he has yet made a decision and will let the committee complete its work.

Since the minister is prepared to put off his decision until we have finished our work, is he, while we are on a roll, prepared to take into account the recommendations to be made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and especially requests coming from people in the industry, from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, because, until now, the coast guard commissioner has had four bosses, none of whom has taken the time to listen to the industry? So I ask him to wait.

[Fees For Marine Services, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, some Wednesday afternoons things get a bit topsy turvey. I understood from the Minister of Transport's second response that he would not be making a hasty decision. I am sorry to say that he will not be making one, since the coast guard now comes under the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

My question is therefore to the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He can take note of what his cabinet colleague just said. Consultations are currently under way on the subject of the fees the coast guard will charge for marine services. I would remind the minister that these consultations are to conclude in the middle of the month of April. The deputy minister in question, the commissioner for the coast guard, announced last week that the minister would reach a decision within two weeks, even before the end of the consultations.

Here is my question, since those opposite seem to be in a hurry today. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for the coast guard, prepared to put off his decision to impose charges for navigational aid services until April 19 at the earliest, so the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans can complete its work?

[Canadian Coast Guard, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, some consultations may have taken place, but I am not sure that the minister followed up on what was said.

I remind the minister that, last week, the commissioner himself admitted that the Coast Guard needs adequate impact studies regarding these new service fees.

Will the minister recognize that it is unthinkable to impose new service fees while being totally unaware of their impact on the

marine industry, including shipowners in the St. Lawrence, and on related industries?