Raynald Blais

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when will the minister realize that one of the solutions available to him is to depoliticize the allocation of fishing quotas and base his decisions on scientific facts? That is easily understood.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the shrimping industry is facing an unprecedented crisis with the collapse of market prices. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will have a good opportunity to propose solutions because an important forum on the future of this industry will be held in Quebec City on Friday.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acknowledge that capping quotas and reducing licence fees could be a first step in solving the crisis affecting shrimp fishermen?

[Petitions, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that is very important to my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The subject of the petition was discussed in this House not long ago, and it will continue to be discussed in the coming weeks and months. I hope we will arrive at the right conclusion.

I am referring to the Wilbert Coffin affair. Mr. Coffin was convicted of a crime and hanged in the 1950s.

More than 2,000 people in my riding are presenting this new petition to the Minister of Justice that calls for clearing the name of Wilbert Coffin, a man from Gaspé.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Nunavut to tell me if I have understood correctly. What she is asking for is an acknowledgement of a people who live in difficult conditions, of a people who know very well of what they speak. We should realize that the issue has been brought here at their request and that they support it. I imagine that they feel it is quite a shame, regrettable even, that so much effort is put into refusing something which, in the end, costs very little. Those living in isolated communities are forced, unfortunately, to be much more creative somehow. They must ask for so much more in order to obtain very little.

I feel that it is a question of acknowledgement and common sense. It also has to do with our land mass. We are proud of the fact that we have a large land mass and that Canada is a big country. The same goes for Quebec, which will soon become a country. When talking about the Magdalen Islands or northern Quebec, we take pride in the fact that Quebec is big, that Canada is also big. Nunavut is certainly an isolated community but what I am hearing is that they are asking for understanding and it seems that, on the government side, they are having a great deal of difficulty recognizing the importance of this matter and of the motion we are discussing today.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if anyone is creating an illusion here, it is the government. The debate we are having and to which I am contributing, is, in fact, much broader. It is not a matter of just a few thousand dollars. At this time, if we were to look at other areas, I would simply remind the House that, when it comes to helping the oil and gas industry, government members are not very interested in having a debate. They just go ahead and act. Yet, this is not the case when it come to logic and fairness, as in the current situation.

This brings me back to the main point of my presentation, that is, it would be entirely reasonable for the government and the minister—with all due respect for his duties and responsibilities—to get behind us and agree to set a good example in this file regarding fees. Setting a good example does not mean waiting and waiting some more, then reviewing and reviewing some more. That is what is currently going on. Unfortunately, when the Liberals formed the government, they reviewed and reviewed some more, while people were left to wait. I find this waiting somewhat damaging, because it suggests a lack of responsibility and rigour, which a government should demonstrate.

In that sense, once again, this brings me back to my main point. I would very much appreciate it if the members opposite, members of the government party, would support the opposition majority on the committee.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I would like to clarify the context of the debate once again. The proposal is quite broad, and the motion enables us to look at the issue from a broad perspective.

The committee is recommending that the government not apply marine service fees on Canadian commercial ships transiting to and from waters north of 60^o based on the socio-economic conditions of the north consistent with the fee exemption established in 1997. This is the first recommendation. There are others, but the government seems to have forgotten or chosen to ignore them.

The second recommendation is this: that the exemption be applied immediately without any further delay and that the Canadian Coast Guard's cost recovery policy with respect to the north be subject to further review in the development of a national future approach to the marine services fees.

This enables us to consider the debate in its broader context. Canada is surrounded by three oceans and has very long coastlines. Documents I consulted said that Canada's coastline is 243,792 km long. That accounts for 25% of the world's coastline. This matter is therefore anything but minor.

The motion gives us an overall view of what is taking place at present. This is also an opportunity for me to mention that a Quebec organization, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, has already expressed its opinion on this file. Let me state some facts. The costs of the Coast Guard represent about $40 million in all. Part is for marine services fees—the subject of today’s motion—and part is for icebreaking fees. Generally speaking, $13 million goes to icebreaking and the other $27 million goes to marine services fees. This is one factor to be considered in our debate of the motion and it is why I am providing these illustrations.

The St. Lawrence Economic Development Council is interested in our discussion today. Moreover it has already had the opportunity to present its position in this regard many times. It did so quite recently, to the Canadian Coast Guard, in April 2006.

Some of the members of the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council—SODES—are the shipowners that serve isolated locations in the Arctic, our topic of discussion today. These shipowners have to pay marine services fees since their services involve trips between ports located south of the 60th parallel and ports located north of the 60th parallel.

These service fees inevitably have an impact on the cost of maritime transport, which in the end has to be assumed by the isolated communities that are resupplied by ship.

In this regard, SODES is in agreement with the Government of Nunavut, which says that we should not charge these service fees since the costs of transportation are already very high for serving Arctic locations. This is another factor to be considered in our debate of the motion.

Living in the Arctic is not necessarily easy on account of the climatic conditions. Unfortunately, when it comes time to resupply, the only way to operate is by air or by sea. A lot of these resupply goods arrive from the South, and that has some impact on the prices paid by the people who live in the Arctic.

“Marine services fees,” said SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, “do not apply to ships sailing exclusively north of the 60th parallel”. That is actually the subject of one of the questions I had the chance to ask a few moments ago.

However, the supply of remote communities in the Arctic inevitably involves marine transport from ports located south of the 60th parallel from which the goods are shipped.

For this reason, the exemption from marine service fees in the Arctic should have initially included transport linking the Arctic with ports located in the south. It would have been the right thing to do because the principle that there are no fees north of the 60th parallel is already recognized, it is applied and there already is an exemption. However, it is not only goods from the north that are transported in the north; there are also goods that arrive from the south.

The fact of not applying service fees for marine transport between the north and south of the 60th parallel is a result of the desire not to impose additional economic costs on remote communities and to encourage a quality marine service at reasonable cost.

That brings me to the key element of the discussion we are having today. We will probably have an opportunity to return to this subject at another time. Today, I want to make it clear that I believe the Canadian Coast Guard should not become a collector of fees. There is a service to be rendered to communities, especially those in the Arctic, but the Coast Guard should concentrate on marine safety.

The Coast Guard does excellent work in that area. I recently had the opportunity to visit with members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary who were holding an exercise in Gaspé during the summer. It was a competition among members of the Auxiliary. In terms of marine safety, members of the Coast Guard already have a record of providing service to people in need in situations that are sometimes unfortunate and even tragic.

There is also another responsibility regarding the Arctic region, considering what is going on there because of climate change. There is a shift taking place. Things could change and it is possible that current traffic will increase. That also falls within the context of debate on the motion. So there is scope for a very broad examination of the situation.

In the case of ice breaking or marine service fees, I do not think that the Coast Guard should become a collector of fees or get in the way. Rather, it should devote its energies to helping marine companies engaging in cabotage. I am speaking about products that are shipped from the south to the north over a great distance and sometimes, under difficult conditions. The Coast Guard must not become simply a collector of fees. I do not believe that is its mandate.

If I am not mistaken, the overall budget of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is $1.4 billion a year. Marine service fees—in other words icebreaking charges—involve $40 million. The subject of the motion today involves only $100,000 or $200,000. We see what this debate is really all about and, by extension, what the government's systematic obstruction is about.

It seems totally natural to me to vote in favour of this type of motion. It was surprising to hear Conservative Party representatives in committee presenting arguments that did not fly. These arguments left us with the impression that this motion would cause a revolution.

It is not a question of revolution, it is a question of logic and fairness. It is as simple as that. This issue raises some relatively important questions: what is the role of the Canadian Coast Guard; what should the government's contribution be; and, how we can work with people from the shipping industry?

In my opinion, what would be useful in this file is for the government to act with more diligence.

The Liberals were very slow to take action. The problems with the icebreaking services and the fees have existed for some time for the shipping industry. There is still no long-term agreement. Year in and year out, the industry operates with something that was decided a number of years ago.

It would be interesting for the Conservative Party to simply rally around the opposition, which is in the majority, and support its position, which is also held by the majority. They have the right to change their minds. Today, in committee, they did not rally around the opposition. They do not seem to want to do so, but they are listening. Listening does not have to be something passive; it can be active. I invite them to change their minds, to change their decision and to rally around this position. It is simply a question of logic and fairness.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more question. I would like to kill two birds with one stone given the minister's presence and his interest in this matter.

This is also a question of fairness. Maritime transporters transiting south to north in the Arctic have to pay marine service fees. Yet foreign vessels that do not travel via the south or who just stay north do not pay any marine fees. So this is about fairness. I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary has to say about this.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary.

There are costs associated with the issue we are discussing today. With regard to maritime law north of 60, there is little marine traffic in that area.

My question is simple. How much money exactly does the issue we are discussing today represent?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP member said, it is surprising to hear the Conservatives stand up and say that a great deal of money will be spent on this issue and that that will open the door to other initiatives or other fee reductions. But when oil and millions of dollars are involved, it is a different matter. Here, we are talking about thousands of dollars only.

I fail to understand the Conservatives' attitude toward the current situation. When we talk about helping people who live in remote areas, we are criticized and told that the money could be spent elsewhere. But when it comes to helping companies that do not necessarily need assistance, such as the oil companies, there is no debate.

I would like to hear what the NDP member has to say about that. I would like to know his opinion and how he reacts to this situation, because it reflects a double standard. At the same time, I feel as though the government is making a big deal out of something that should be logical: helping people who live in remote areas.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask a direct question of the Minister of Finance pertaining to a file of great importance for my region.

Under the former government there was a wind power incentive program. Now that the Department of Finance is reviewing just about every government expenditure that can be reviewed, there is a $105 million project.

There is some concern about this project, which aims to build 54 wind turbines that will supply three megawatts of power. This was supposed to occur in Murdochville, right in the heart of Gaspésie. It is one of the projects related to generating green energy, wind energy.

I imagine that the minister is aware of renewable energy and this whole concept. I therefore beg him to give us an answer concerning the fact that, within the current context of program review, there is a great deal of uncertainty about various projects. This is one that seems to be have been put on hold and that would be a shame. I think it is important and worthwhile for the minister to lift the veil on this matter.