House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 54% of the vote.
The Québécois November 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in knowing from the member what it is about the term “united Canada” that he does not understand. Is it not very clear?
If the word “nation” is so difficult to define, why does the member keep using it? I know he uses the word in terms of first nations. Who then are the first nations within this united Canada?
2006 Grey Cup November 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians from coast to coast watched the 94th Grey Cup that was held in Winnipeg. Named for a former governor general, the Grey Cup is one of Canada's great sporting traditions.
As a British Columbian and an avid fan of the B.C. Lions for more than 45 years, and a seasons ticket holder, I am proud to say the B.C. Lions are the 2006 Grey Cup champions after a hard fought win over the Montreal Alouettes.
The B.C. Lions' fight song says, “From the mountains to the sea, you are the pride of all B.C.” From Nakusp to Nanaimo, from Vanderhoof to Vancouver, B.C. is proud of its five time Grey Cup champions.
I know all B.C. MPs will want to join me in congratulating Coach Wally Buono, coordinators Jacques Chapdelaine and Dave Ritchie and all of the B.C. Lions. They made us proud and we are looking forward to another successful season in 2007.
I know I am not alone when I say, go Lions go.
Committees of the House October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is so much a matter of fairness. The reason for it, as I think the member knows, is that there are agreements between shippers from other jurisdictions, and in fact they are reciprocal agreements, such that if a ship is coming from Maine, let us say, there are agreements that the Canadian Coast Guard has with that jurisdiction. We are bound by these agreements. I think that all in all they are good agreements to have and we probably would not want to change them.
As I have said, we are not opposed to discussing this and taking a look at it. We think we should do it in a well ordered way and that is in fact what is going on at this moment with government and industry.
Committees of the House October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we need to keep this in mind. There really is not the infrastructure in Nunavut, for example, to conduct the sealift, the resupply, in a normal way. The Coast Guard already provides those other services of temporary mooring and harbour buoys, offloading services and so on. When we add them up, it cost more than it recovers from the $100,000 of cost recovery for marine services fees from south of 60 to north of 60.
As the minister has said, we always want to ensure that we address their needs. We realize there are some unique socio-economic conditions. It might well be, as we conduct a national review of this, that we come up with a single rate for the Arctic, but let us not prejudge that.
As my hon. colleague from the Bloc has suggested to our committee, why do we not bring in some witnesses before the committee and have an intelligent discussion about that before proceeding with a motion like this one?
Committees of the House October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my colleague's interest in issues related to fisheries and oceans. He is a very important member of our committee.
I want to ensure that there is no confusion on this issue. There is no cost recovery for transportation that operates exclusively north of 60. It has worked this way since the initiation of the cost recovery program for service fees in 1996. There is an exemption and there always has been. In fact, there has always been the other approach. There is a cost recovery for transportation that comes from the south and goes to the north until it reaches north of 60.
After the first stop, let us say it goes to Iqaluit and then perhaps a number of stops after that, and there might be a fair number of those north of 60, there is no cost recovery charged to those. That is why there is a very small amount, in fact about $100,000 of marine services fees for trips that are taken from south of 60, say Montreal or some other place, and then into the eastern Arctic north of 60. It is a relatively small amount of money.
Committees of the House October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my hon. colleague agrees with us, that finding some way other than changing, in a very small way, the cost recovery system, which the Coast Guard applies, is probably the way to approach this issue.
I am not in a position to speak for the Minister of Finance or other members of the government, but we are always open to reviewing the taxation system to ensure it is as fair and balanced as it should be. I am confident we will be doing this in this regard as well.
Committees of the House October 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion by the NDP member for concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank him for his work on this issue and on many others.
Canada's new government shares the committee's regard and concern for this country's citizens of the north. We fully appreciate the unique socio-economic conditions facing this part of our vast country. However, this motion as it stands now ignores much of the work already completed and currently under way on the question of federal marine services fees and their application north of the 60th parallel. It also ignores the realities of maritime transport in keeping our waters safe and accessible for those who sail them. In the few minutes that I have, I want to develop these themes.
The motion calls for an immediate exemption of marine service fees on vessels that transit to and from waters north of 60. It also calls for a further review of the Canadian Coast Guard's cost recovery policy with respect to northern Canada. As well, it accuses the Coast Guard of being inconsistent with existing exemptions for the north in applying fees on sea lift services to the eastern Arctic.
Let me remind this House of the facts on marine services fees and what Canada's new government is doing to work with industry and the government of Nunavut on this matter.
Marine services fees were initiated in 1996 on commercial shipping in Canadian waters. They apply to commercial ships that derive a direct benefit from the navigational and icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard. They exist to recover a portion of the costs incurred by the Coast Guard in providing these services.
I should note that the Arctic is not subject to the icebreaking fees. I will come back to this shortly.
Therefore, the fees in question are those charged by the Coast Guard for marine navigation services. These include maintaining aids to navigation such as fixed beacons, lights and floating markers, as well as vessel traffic services.
As part of a national program, these navigation service fees are applied to all commercial cargo vessels, including those that traverse the 60th parallel. Most of this traffic is of course generated by ships delivering goods north, as there is very little north to south commercial traffic. The fees are charged to individual vessels in waters subject to cost recovery and are paid to the Coast Guard. In the case of the eastern Arctic sea lift, the fee is applicable only on the portion of the trip south of 60.
From the outset when the marine services fee program was established, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard recognized the fragile economic conditions and unique challenges facing the north. The program recognized that without additional analysis of the northern situation it would have been premature to apply cost recovery for these services north of 60. The program also excluded cost recovery from transit between remote ports designated by Transport Canada's national marine policy.
In 1998, the marine services fee policy was extended somewhat by replacing Transport Canada's definition of remote ports with places in prescribed zones as designated by the Income Tax Act. These places are typically in areas that rely primarily on marine transport for resupply but whose ports are not economically viable on their own. The ports are usually owned and operated by the federal government.
In taking this step, the Coast Guard accepted the finance department's view that areas in the north deserve special consideration, as they did in the Income Tax Act, based on their economic situation. So it switched from Transport Canada's listing of remote ports to the finance department's listing of places in these prescribed northern zones. The Coast Guard believed this to be a fairer and more representative listing of locations that merit exemption from marine services fees, which is where we are today in regard to marine services fees.
At present there are two exceptions to this national policy that deal with northern and remote areas: commercial ships operating in waters exclusively north of 60, or those that sail between the places in prescribed zones listed in the Income Tax Act. Those are the two exemptions.
All other commercial vessel traffic is subject to the fees as part of the Coast Guard's partial cost recovery. When I say partial cost recovery, I mean just that. The cost for providing these navigational services to Canada's commercial shipping industry south of 60 is in the neighbourhood of $66 million annually. For navigational services exclusively north of 60, the figure is an additional $17.6 million, but as I said, it is not subject to cost recovery.
The total revenue generated from marine navigation services fees last year was about $31 million. Of that, about $100,000 a year comes from the fees levied on ships crossing the 60th parallel, only $100,000 a year. That equates to adding about $1 to the $300 cost of shipping a snowmobile, for example, from Montreal to Iqaluit, or $8 on a $2,000 shipping charge for sending a pickup truck along that same route.
This of course raises some concerns from the government of Nunavut and the shipping industry. Naturally, shipping companies would prefer to see no fees at all.
In terms of added value, I hasten to add that fees for icebreaking services, from which the north receives some benefit, are not applicable north of 60. In fact, last year the cost for icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard in these waters was about $41 million.
We do not charge for these services because we see icebreaking in the north as an essential service for the public good. It means that northern residents and commercial interests can access safer waterways and access them earlier in the year. It means open harbours and greater opportunities for the people of the north, who maintain Canada's Arctic sovereignty on our behalf.
Moreover, even though most vessels engaged in the sealift begin their journey south of 60, they pay no icebreaking fees there either. This is because the Arctic sealift typically operates from July to October, before the start of icebreaking season.
As well, the Coast Guard provides a number of other services to Canada's north. These services benefit the eastern Arctic resupply, commercial shippers and northern residents to varying degrees, but they are services to which no cost recovery is applied.
In addition to icebreaking, these services include search and rescue, marine communications, environmental response, and direct funding from DFO to maintain 37 remote resupply landing areas.
There is yet another service that the Canadian Coast Guard continues to provide the industry and the residents of Nunavut, despite differing opinions on official responsibility: the Iqaluit beachmaster-harbourmaster program. With no commercial port facilities in Iqaluit, the Coast Guard supplies personnel and equipment to coordinate the arrival, safe mooring and unloading and departure of commercial cargo ships conducting the sealift. The Coast Guard also directs vessel traffic and places mooring buoys in the harbour.
This program is not an official duty of the Coast Guard. As part of the sealift, it should rest with the government of Nunavut. This has been a topic of discussion between previous federal governments and Nunavut for years. In fact, the debate continues today.
However, we continue to provide this service, one that directly benefits the industry and the people of Nunavut. It costs the Coast Guard somewhere between $150,000 to $175,000 to do so. This alone outpaces the $100,000 a year I mentioned a moment ago that is collected from ships transiting to and from north of 60.
In 2005, the Nunavut government asked the previous minister of fisheries and oceans to review marine services fees. Nunavut's Minister of Economic Development and Transportation expressed his government's view that no such fees should be applied because of the already high cost of shipping to the Arctic. This review was completed in June of this year. Shortly thereafter, we shared its findings with the current Nunavut minister and the president of the Chamber of Maritime Commerce.
The review, which has been made public by the Canadian Coast Guard, focused on ships conducting the Arctic sealift. For the sake of clarity, I should add that the sealift is primarily composed of well-established marine companies that provide these resupply services to Nunavut for part of the operating year. It is not an Arctic fleet operating solely north of 60, which would make it exempt from marine services fees.
The review looked into assertions that marine navigation services fees are an unfair burden on Nunavut. It examined the assumption that the fees are a major cost component of transportation and that the policy on these fees is applied incorrectly.
The review found no immediate or compelling reasons to eliminate these fees on commercial ships sailing between south and north of 60. It found that the fee is not a significant contributor to the cost of transportation, citing the figures I stated previously. Generally, the fee adds less than 1% to the cost of shipping to north of 60. In other words, if the marine navigation services fees were to be eliminated, it would not reduce the cost of shipping to the people of Nunavut in any meaningful way.
The review also found that application of this fee was consistent with the exemptions established previously, which I have already discussed. These exemptions were never intended to be permanent. The government of the day implemented them with the understanding that the policy would be reviewed periodically. Adjustments to the new policy could be made as a clearer picture of the northern shipping situation emerged. In effect, that happened in 1998, when the program was only two years old, and it is happening now as the entire marine services fees program is being looked at. This is being done by industry and government together.
I stress, again, that the marine services fees are part of a national cost recovery program that covers part of the expenses incurred by the coast guard in providing safe and accessible waters. As such, there was never any plan by previous governments to extend exemptions perpetually. Periodic reviews of the program allow governments the opportunity to work with industry to bring policies in line with current shipping conditions.
However, the government does share some common ground with the motion before us today. We agree that the Coast Guard's costs recovery policy for the north does merit further consideration as part of a national discussion. At this time we are engaged in discussions with the marine industry to develop a future approach to marine services fees. The goal is to develop a long term arrangement that addresses some of the outstanding issues on this matter between government and industry.
For the shipping industry, we are striving to bring greater stability and predictability to the marine services fees program. For government, or more specifically for the Coast Guard, a renewed approach to marine services fees could better reflect the current realities of commercial shipping. It could also serve to resolve an issue that is impacting the Coast Guard's relationship with the major client group.
These discussions are moving well. Both sides seem to agree that a comprehensive national framework on marine services fees is best for all concerned. Admittedly, the structure of marine navigation service fees is pretty complex. It is made up of an interwoven web of regional rates and applications to reflect commercial shipping patterns in different parts of the country.
Substantive one-off fee adjustments in particular regions could inadvertently and negatively impact the industry in other areas. That is why we have agreed that any changes to the fee should be undertaken at the same time on a national level and in a transparent manner. This, of course, would include fees applied during the Arctic sea lift.
The government does see the value in further discussing this matter with industry in a national context, and we recognize that there could be some benefit to exploring the possibility of a single rate for the Arctic. We will have more to say on the future approach to marine services fees in the coming months. We look forward to discussing our progress with the standing committee at that time and with the members of the House.
I was particularly disappointed, as we discussed this in committee, that this approach was not applied. Why we would proceed on this while there was a national discussion taking place was confusing and disappointing to me.
The government is sensitive to the fact that Canada's north faces unique environmental and socio-economic conditions. We recognize that a high cost of living and the distinct means of resupply are among the challenges of living north of 60.
Governments have tried to provide some relief through tax deductions for northern residents. This appears to me a more appropriate measure to addressing socio-economic imbalances than eliminating fees that go toward much needed navigational services. These services help ensure the safety and timely delivery of the eastern Arctic's critical resupply and they help provide mariners safe passage through often hazardous northern waters. Marine operators there often face high tidal ranges, ice infested waterways and limited port infrastructure.
In our view, these navigational services are as much a necessity to the safe operation of vessels as are the cost of adequate fuel, crew or vessel maintenance, among other expenses. However, as I stated, the cost of these navigational services is small compared to other shipping expenses and the return is very great.
In fact, as the review also noted, increased economic activity in the Arctic will bring greater demand and opportunity for shipping companies operating in the north. The government of Nunavut estimated a 32% increase in the number of scheduled stops as part of the sealift arrangement with suppliers. This in turn places greater demand for Coast Guard services. Eliminating the modest cost recovery associated with marine services fees does not appear to be a feasible option at this time.
The government does not concur with the motion before the House today. What we do agree with is continuing our efforts, in partnership with the industry, to find reasonable options in regard to marine services fees.
The Canadian Coast Guard is an indispensable part of our country's marine transportation network. Ask any mariner who has faced treacherous waters or trouble at sea. The talented and dedicated people behind this unique organization are committed to providing safe passage to all those who ply our waters, but they need the right tools and the right support to do their jobs properly.
We in government are tasked with making the right decisions that balance service to the public with sound fiscal stewardship of public resources. Marine services fees are part of this responsibility in ensuring the Coast Guard can continue its key role in marine safety.
We are committed to the best interest of our northern citizens. For the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, these interests are best served by providing safe and accessible waterways, vital to the well-being of Canadians north of 60.
Fisheries October 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right to be concerned about the situation. There has been considerable tension between the lobster fishers from the Chapel Island First Nation and local fishermen, particularly with respect to measures relating to the band's food, social and ceremonial fishery.
Agreement was reached last weekend with first nation leadership. The band council then voted to reject that agreement. Therefore, now talks are ongoing to reach a consensus.
I want to assure the member that we are monitoring the situation very closely.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will agree that the problems facing displaced older workers cannot be tackled by any single department nor even one level of government.
Cooperation and commitment among governments is key. That is why the government is taking action on two fronts. As I said earlier, we are pursuing options with our provincial and territorial colleagues to help displaced older workers. We are looking into a variety of measures and we are looking forward to the recommendations that come from this feasibility study. In other words, we are ensuring that older, displaced workers receive the best help possible.
The second part of the strategy has to be to build a stronger and more sustainable fishery and we have already had constructive discussions to that end as well.
I can assure my hon. colleague that we are committed to building on this momentum and toward a healthier and more vibrant fishing industry for the coastal communities of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso for his ongoing interest in these issues that are of great importance to Canada's rural fishing communities.
After record landed values in 2004, Canada's commercial fishing industries are facing significant challenges that continue to affect the viability of both the fish harvesting and processing sectors, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
Globalization of rural fisheries is generating significant competition from countries such as China, as the member says, where labour is both abundant and cheap. This is rapidly squeezing out the ability of Canadian processing companies to compete in an international market.
The high Canadian dollar and the rising cost of fuel are also having a significant impact on the industry. Coupled with this are the declining prices for some of our more lucrative species such as crab and shrimp. For example, crab fishers enjoyed a price of close to $3 per pound in 2004 and this year faced prices as low as $1 per pound.
In light of these challenges, many commercial fishers and fish processing workers are struggling day to day to make ends meet and maintain their jobs.
I should note, though, that there are some signs of encouragement. Prices for fuel have dropped from recent highs. As well, the decline in prices for landing crab has slowed and has, in certain areas, rebounded. These are positive signs, but as we know they can change again, for the worse, and we need to help industry so it can better respond to these pressures.
Canada, like all countries around the world, is facing continuous economic adjustment pressures. Our population is aging. While some of our industries are in decline, others are experiencing labour shortages. The impact of these challenges has not been evenly distributed across communities, regions or provinces in Canada and there is no easy solution.
In Canada older workers have become the principal source of labour force growth in recent years. As the Canadian population ages, encouraging their participation will play an important role in ensuring growth and rising living standards. However, some unemployed older workers face special difficulties in today's labour market. For example, some do not have the education or transferrable skills needed for today's jobs and many older workers are employed in declining industries.
As my hon. colleague knows, the federal government announced in budget 2006 that it would conduct, in partnership with provinces and territories, a feasibility study to evaluate current and potential measures to address the challenges faced by displaced older workers, including the need for improved training and enhanced income support, such as early retirement benefits. This feasibility study will provide recommendations on how to best assist older workers over the long term.
However, our work does not stop there. Earlier this spring the province of Newfoundland and Labrador hosted a summit that included federal and provincial ministers alike as well as industry representatives and stakeholders to discuss these important issues and seek to identify possible solutions. Federal and provincial officials continue to work with industry and stakeholders on all aspects of the industry, harvesting and processing, to establish an ocean to plate approach that will ensure an economically viable industry. As we know, a similar summit was held in Prince Edward Island.
I can assure my hon. colleague that we are committed to continuing our important work with provinces, industry and other stakeholders toward our goal of an economically viable and sustainable industry that will continue to benefit our vibrant coastal fishing communities.